Growth of science and technology and revival of indigenous knowledge systems

The new knowledge created a new type of elite, smugger, arrogant and alienated and who rejected the traditional wisdom by treating it superstitious, magical, archaic and irrational. However, the new knowledge remained limited to a small section of society and the masses continued to depend on the older wisdom. The new knowledge was inadequate and unaffordable. This produces the paradox of knowledge. Knowledge became a new privilege, confined to a small group of knowledge elite who used it for their material advancement. Some knowledge percolated to middle and lower classes and developed aspirations among them leading to new forms of social tension and unrest. In any case, the majority continued to depend on the indigenous knowledge frameworks – in agricultural practices, medical practices, survival, cultural and religious practices, and even education (continuing reliance on religious rather than secular education, for example). Some people thought that development is indeed the goal but to develop further we need to use both modern and traditional wisdom. This will serve two purposes: take care of adverse consequences of application of new knowledge, and bring the isolated and marginal people into the mainstream. There may be many areas in which traditional institutions and indigenous knowledge systems could be of immense help. The new knowledge and the old way of thinking other than completely rational scientific thinking has gradually entered the state plans too in a small way. This is reflected in renewed interest in AYUSH in health, strengthening of gram panchayats which have transferred a large number of administrative, financial and judicial powers, demand for smaller states, public-private participation in development, increased role of grassroots workers, NGOs and CBOs in planning and development, and new environmental initiatives.

However, there is yet another tendency. This glamorizes various forms of ideas, practices and products from the past and presents them as the true alternatives to the crisis created by modernization. There is a rise of arrogant nativism in many fields and a view that the society must learn from its past. Several of such movements reject or downgrade the modern systems and argue for supplanting them by the traditional systems. The danger is that in most cases this only strengthens the traditional hierarchies or creates some new hierarchies based on the renewed understanding of tradition. While resisting the exterior sources of dominance – capital, power or ideas – one has to be equally wary of this tendency.

In this context, definition, generation, distribution and impact of knowledge become complex political issues.