The panel discussion was held to further the idea of commons by extending the idea of autonomy in some of the discussions on commons to the Indian idea of Swaraj or Self-Rule.
Discussions in the panel drew the existing ideas of resource sharing, establishing institutions for governance but extend this to a broader discussion on knowledge and democracy. The panel draws from a recent examination of Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj from a knowledge perspective, an attempt by a network of knowledge commons - the Knowledge In Civil Society or KICS – to posit an Indian science and technology manifesto for 21st-century India and the world. Knowledge Swaraj suggests a new social contract of science in India, based on the principles of plurality, sustainability and justice and a closer look at expertise and knowledge in India. The panel began with a view from civil society on knowledge by M V Sastri looking at Gandhi’s ideas of Hind Swaraj and oceanic circles and the need for the commons debates to relook at ideas from Hind Swaraj from the viewpoint of the present day discourses of human rights also. This was followed by papers that suggest how these ideas can be explored in practice.
Indian planners have placed high emphasis on knowledge through science and technology (and more recently innovation) in all its plans. Yet the planning processes seem to ignore or by-pass the potentially large contribution of peoples knowledge (knowledge by and of the commons) and continue to be driven by scientific expertise from state agencies and the market. A recent draft innovation law of the Government of India, for instance, has no mention of the poor, grassroots, community, civil society or more broadly the commons. The papers by Wiebe Bijker and Shambu Prasad seek to extend the ideas of the commons, currently more common in discussions on property rights in forests and drylands, to the broader discussions on science, technology and society.
Wiebe Bijker’s paper explores the paradox of scientific authority in Europe and shows how science policy processes in the Netherlands, and in Europe in general, have sought to improve the interface between science and society. By exploring the idea of a variety of forms of expertise, Bijker argues to revisit the dichotomy of experts and laypersons and he suggests recognizing the importance of the knowledge of citizens, patients, farmers, workers, users, etc. He discussed how different forms of expertise are being enacted in the governance of science and technology. Examples come from the fields of health sciences and nanotechnologies.
Shambu Prasad in his paper looks at the new commons in agriculture showing how there is an emerging movement of knowledge commons that has shunned privatisation and patent rights and demonstrated that farmers can access and contribute to rice science by using newer modes of interaction. He demonstrates this through the way knowledge has been generated in the System of Rice Intensification showing how organising knowledge as commons can lead to knowledge Swaraj for small and marginal farmers in India.
Together these papers and the panel suggest that the commons debate can benefit from a dialogue with contemporary understanding and applications of Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj – especially on the ideas of autonomy, the role of civil society in reconstituting expertise and on the social relations of communities, new and old, that lead to knowledge commons.