Sessions/Themes of the Convention

Theme/Session - 1: Knowledge in Society – The Foundation for an Equitable and Just Society

Theme/Session - 2: Poverty and the Knowledge question –role of Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge

Theme/Session - 3: Kannada Knowledge Traditions

Theme/Session - 4: Imagining Swaraj in the 21st century -- some Knowledge issues

Theme/Session - 5: Knowledge in Development Discourse, and Peoples Movements

Theme/Session - 6: Artificial Intelligence and the Knowledge question

Theme/Session - 7: Art and the Knowledge Question

Theme/Session - 8: India as a Voice from the Global South: The Knowledge Dimension.

Full details of the Convention are available at

https://www.ppstindia.in/convention

Read More

Theme/Session -1:

Knowledge in Society – The Foundation for an Equitable and Just Society

Working Group: Avinash Jha (Convener), J K Suresh, R.Goswami, A Shanmukha, Meti Mallikarjuna, Sunil Sahasrabudhey

Summary: The term ‘Knowledge’ today is used to refer to formal and specialized knowledge which is transmitted and learnt in educational institutions like schools, colleges and universities and produced in research institutes. The existence of knowledge amongst ordinary people is considered knowledge only in a qualified sense – traditional knowledge, folk knowledge, local knowledge etc. Even when acknowledged, such knowledge in society is explained away as aphorisms and techniques learnt by imitation, rote, practice, or as unscientific folk wisdom etc. However, this knowledge in society continues to provide sustenance to a majority of ‘uneducated’ Indians by equipping them to serve large numbers of people in areas as diverse as indigenous medicine, agriculture, transport, construction, restaurants and food etc. Management of enterprises based on small and very small capital is an important part of knowledge in society. So is the knowledge that is evident in life patterns and aesthetic activities of ordinary people. Moving away from the paradigm which considers ‘science’ and its cognates as knowledge per se and the rest as knowledge in an inferior sense, this position seeks to stress the significance and vitality of knowledge in society which might have its own organizing principles for acquiring, renewing and practicing knowledge in ways not always anticipated by the practitioners of formal and specialized knowledge.

Background

As human beings we are largely products of our learning and the ability to transmit our learning to the next generation, which also serves to distinguish us from all other animals. Hence, it is a truism to say that all human beings are knowledge beings. It is this endowment of knowledge in human society that makes possible the building up of human civilizations over millennia.

This trivial truth is in itself not very useful in understanding or explicating the nature and evolution of societies across centuries. Although as knowledge beings we all are equal, it must also be clear that there have been hierarchies in human societies and hence also of knowledge. No knowledge is innocent. Our knowledge has not only given us the power to dominate nature and control it to serve our needs but also to dominate other human beings. That knowledge is power is not only a Baconian or Western concept but was perhaps a larger understanding of human societies everywhere. However it must also be recognized that knowledge serves as a major resource providing strength to people to resist external domination and oppression in society.

In terms of their spread, various types of knowledge – of tools and machines, materials and minerals, agriculture, horticulture, behavior and interactions, social life, economics, arts, administration and politics, philosophy, spirituality etc. – that served the evolving needs of societies over time in history were situated partly within the society at large and partly within specialist groups. In terms of diversity, each region possessed its own version of knowledge types that best suited its environment, both human and natural. Interactions between communities enabled their development even as differences between them persisted. A common feature of knowledge was that it was not beyond social scrutiny and control, i.e., social norms would determine the scope and limits of its practice. For example, the village commons or forest patches would not be completely denuded even if it was an economically attractive proposition; open and strip mines would not be massively exploited so as to render the land around it infertile or degraded. And so on. In a distributed and de-centralized society such as pre-modern India, it is evident therefore that knowledge in society was diverse and multi-dimensional, while being largely governed by its endogenous values.

Today’s Scenario

An important development of the previous two hundred years is the growth of a nexus between power and knowledge. Power and knowledge were perhaps largely independent in pre-modern society. However, from the time of the industrial revolution, they have attained a growing degree of affinity. Over time, every major development in the sphere of knowledge has come to be co-opted by power, whilst every new affirmation of power leads to a greater control over the process of knowledge creation and use. Power as we understand it, goes beyond political power symbolized by the State and its institutions. It constitutes in addition an ecosystem that is driven by the logic of Capital and utilizes instruments mediated by knowledge for social, economic and cultural influence and control.

The separation of human knowledge from its location advanced rapidly during and after the industrial revolution in Europe along with the capability to embed a progressively larger amount of complexity (i.e., knowledge) into machines; this capability gradually extended to areas such as large scale manufacture of iron, textiles, steam and machine tools in the 19th century and to mass manufacturing of cars in the 20th, enabling the reduction of human effort to mere manual labor to a large part. In the 21^st century, global manufacture and services have triggered the development of vast, hyper-real and virtual devices to feed the demand for their production. Together, they have created a new global empire, whose knowledge intensive hubs exercise complete control over societies which in theory are independent and sovereign, but are subservient to the demands of consumption and progress, as exemplified by the empire and its physical and knowledge capital.

The consequences of the above developments are two-fold: one, a weakening of knowledge in society that leads to the society’s inability to control the distribution of the fruits of its knowledge; which in turn leads to a general de-skilling and de-education of the majority. Two, it enables a few to monopolize the knowledge development process, overturn all norms in society and create great disruptions and inequities in society in their drive to maximize the return on Capital, which has become the ruling mantra of the world.

Speakers/Topics:

Avinash Jha :Opening Comments

1. Sunil Sahasrabudhey “A Statement on Lokavidya - The Knowledge in Society”

2. Rajaram Hegde “Configuration of Learning and Indian Knowledge System: What has gone wrong in our understanding?”

3. Madhulika Banerjee “Pluriversal Knowledges as a Frame for Understanding Knowledge in Society”

4. Sasidharan P K “Emerging Talk of Epistemic Justice- yet another injustice”

*******************************

Back to Top

Theme/Session -2

Poverty and the Knowledge question – role of Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge

Working Group: Veena Joshi (Convener), Umashankari, Rahul Goswami, C N Krishnan

While mass hunger may be a thing of the past, poverty and deprivation exist in India on a mass scale –large sections of people lacking in adequate food, nutrition, drinking water, healthcare, housing, education, transport, wages, employment, habitat and environment, etc. These sectors where poverty is still rampant are in reality our “core sectors” as far as the well-being of the people are concerned, and addressing this requires large scale investments going into them, and not merely into 'infrastructure' projects like airports, highways, harbours, bullet trains etc. Significantly, not much of these investments needed to address poverty need to go into capital and energy intensive inputs like high technology, large machinery, high science etc, most of which anyway have to be imported. These investments need to go primarily into (i) employing much larger numbers of people in most sectors with reasonable levels of salaries and job security, along with appropriate training programs for them (ii) protecting our natural resources and assets, and utilising them in a just and sustainable manner. The awareness, knowledge and skills available with the ordinary people, supplemented wherever needed with specialised knowledge, technology and training, would mostly be adequate to address the problem of poverty in our country. This knowledge base available in the society, also referred to as Knowledge in Society, is composed of elements from both the Traditional/Indigenous and the Modern/ Western streams, created through a continuous process of experimentation, innovation, absorption, and integration practiced by the people in their day to day lives.

Our basic position is this: “The knowledge base needed for removal of large scale poverty in our country is largely available with the ordinary people and the small-scale sector”. This proposition needs to be addressed from different stand points, and taking different domains, highlighting how an appropriately conceived partnership between the Traditional/ Indigenous and the Modern/ Western can effectively combat poverty and its consequences.

 The following would be a few major points to see here:

1. India today is host to perhaps the largest share of world's poor --

   
   

● ill-fed and malnourished people, especially women and children

● heavy burden of disease and ill-health

● poor housing and unhygienic habitat conditions

● education that does not lead to jobs with decent wages.

● poor quality and unsafe means of public transport

● poor quality of governance practices, including justice delivery.

● degraded environment leading to poor quality of water, air, soil and vegetation

This is the reality that is clearly visible to anyone, and gets routines mapped into figures like our country ranking 119th in terms of GDP (PPP), 104th in terms of Hunger Index.134^th in terms of Human Development Index, Etc.

2. Mass poverty and unemployment can be eliminated by significant investments going into ensuring

● food and nutritional security with full coverage of the population

● essential healthcare needs, especially primary healthcare, with full coverage.

● proper housing, drinking water and sanitation for all

● school education that enables everyone to earn an adequate living after 12 years of schooling.

● affordable road and rail transport that is safe and comfortable for everyone.

● accessible and responsive system of governance, including security and justice delivery.

● Environmental and Ecological health and sustainability for all.

As has become amply clear by now, poverty removal targets are not achievable through a trickle-down process resulting from huge infrastructure investments, along with some acts of state charity that converts citizens into beneficiaries.

3. The most important part of this investment needed for poverty removal would go into, not advanced technologies, materials or machinery, but into large scale employment of people at different levels in all these sectors. For example, hiring and training teachers in large numbers, with reasonable salaries and job security, and with appropriate training is the key component of improving our school education system. The same applies to the other areas that are central to poverty removal. This single step also helps address the problem of unemployment to a good extent, and the resulting increased purchasing power will also expand the markets for manufactured goods and services.

   
   

4. None of the steps mentioned above for the removal of mass poverty need significant amounts of high science, technology or management, especially of the type that needs to be imported. The knowledge, skills and awareness available with the ordinary people can be the foundation on which this can be done, supplemented wherever needed with specialised knowledge, technology and training. This knowledge base available in the society is made out of elements from both the Traditional and the Modern streams, through a continuous process of experimentation, innovation, absorption and integration practiced by the people in their day to day lives. Examples of these can be seen in areas such as Agriculture and Dairy, Food and Nutrition, Health and Medicine, Housing and Habitat, Textiles and Clothing, Forests, Rivers and Water, Small Industries, etc.

   
   

     Panel Discussion on

   “The knowledge base needed for removal of mass poverty is largely available with the ordinary people and the small-scale sector”

Moderator: Veena Joshi

The Panellists and Topics:

Healthcare: Darshan Shankar , Mangalath Prasad

Agriculture: A V Balasubramanian, Krishna Prasad

Water: Ravindra Kumar Phatak

Textiles: Samyukta Gorrepati

Rural Industries: Pradeep Sharma

****************************

Back to Top

Theme/ Session-3

Kannada Knowledge Traditions 

Working Group: Meti Mallikarjun (Convener), J. K Suresh, GSR Krishnan, A. Shanmukha and

Veena Joshi

Kannada is a unique, classical and heritage language. The distinctive epistemological traditions

that are rooted in Kannada have given birth to unique knowledge systems over times which are

different from those of other languages in India. These differences stem from socio-cultural dimensions peculiar to the people and their environments. They are culturally rich and specific to

Kannada. The core of each epistemological instance can be understood through an exploration of

its expression in Kannada language, literature, history and culture.

A key focus of Kannada Knowledge Tradition theme is to ask broad questions about discursive

formations of epistemology and traditions in relation to language, culture and power. The idea of

knowledge is relying upon simultaneously knowledge, politics and power. Ways of thinking about social structure, knowledge traditions, politics of pedagogy and cultural practices are taken into consideration to address the pertinent questions regarding the politics of knowledge in the Kannada context. Both Indian (Bharatiya) and western dominant forms of rationality, have long

been part of patriarchal power and control over Kannada knowledge traditions. As a result, Bhakti movements, Folk epics and traditions emerged as alternative knowledge traditions to draw their own experiences to guide lives and sociopolitical actions in Karnataka. All in all, in this particular session, the ways in which social relations of knowledge production and the types of knowledge produced are being focused to understand the totality of Kannada Knowledge Traditions within the framework of epistemologies and knowledge traditions.

If India is to be considered a civilization and not a mere nation, its history must lie in the story of the evolution, assimilation and interactions of its languages, and therefore, of various knowledge

systems that they represent. Linguistic variety is central in shaping the diversity of beliefs, world-

views, cultures and destinies of communities. In this multi-verse, when a language dies, a world

dies along with it.

In our pre-occupation with development since independence, it appears that India has not been very serious in engaging with the speedily changing world through the socio-cultural-philosophical tools that language provides us in order to enable us accommodate and assimilate world-views, technologies or constructs that come from across borders; to all sectors that are critical to our society, viz., economics, arts, thought, entertainment, communication and trade. The examples of China and Japan may suffice in illustrating our failure in this task. This failure has also led to a mind-set that is apathetic to the death of languages, based on a mistaken belief that greater uniformity aids the process of nation-building.

How may we approach this task? In contrast with sub-continental Nationalism, languages grounded in the knowledge traditions of the region may bind people more cohesively through shared experiences, beliefs, mores and values in all walks of life. When viewed in the context of society, they offer a promise of enabling the development of a collective identity that can meet the challenges posed by evolving modern economics, social structures, and technological changes through continuous and creative assimilation and accommodation.

In this theme, we intend to investigate the experiences of the Kannada Desha as an exemplar of how regional knowledge traditions, as reflected by their linguistic expressions – both in their written and oral forms - have faced the challenges posed by social change, unrest, political uncertainty, natural and man-made disasters and sudden changes over time. Some examples of these may be found in the Santa parampare of the Kannada Desha (before, during and after the Bhakti movement), the pre-modern eras of Buddhism, Jainism and multi-dimensional Hinduism; in the times of Colonialism, the nature of the language of ordinary life in the era of Kannada imperial conquest (Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, Sevuna, Hoysala and Karnata Samrajya periods), the Karnataka unification project, anti-Hindi agitation, Farmers’ movements, Gokak agitation, etc. We also seek to explore the promises offered by knowledge traditions such as of Kannada in resolving the vexatious relationship that has come to be between language and social development (e.g., in education), and well-being and justice for all (e.g., jobs for locals).

In addition to the above, there is also a need to look at further questions relating to Kannada language, literature, culture, society, politics, Agriculture, Development, Folklore, Science, Technology, and other relevant areas.

Keynote: Kannada Knowledge: Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity – K V Narayan

Panel discussion 1: “Language, Classicism and Orality”

Panelists and topics

1. Krishnamurthy Hanuru - “Knowledge, Power Folk”

2. K V Akshara - “Towards a new imagination of ‘Knowledge and Language’”

3. Ashadevi M S - “Gender as alternative Discourses”

4. Basavaraj Kalgudi - “Social Phenomena in Bhakti Traditions”

5. K Y Narayanaswamy - “Idea of Karnataka Studies”

Panel discussion 2: Exploring/uncovering the possibilities.

Panelists and topics

1. Chandra Pujari - “Crises in the Perspectives of Social Science”

2. Rajaram Tolpadi- “Knowledge Question and Cultural Hegemony”

3. Jayaprakash Benjagere - “Alternative Discourses”

4. Du Sarswathi - “Knowledge of Oppressed Communities”

5. Santhosh Naik- “Social Phenomenon and Idea of Social Knowledge”

*******************

Back to Top

Theme/Session-4

Imagining Swaraj in the 21st century -- some Knowledge issues

Working Group: B V Rama Prasad (Convener), G. Sivaramakrishnan, Sunil Sahasrabudhey,

Rajeev Sangal

Societies are sufficiently rich and complex. They possess the imagination and knowledge to understand and address problems as they arise. Problems become intractable and multiply when expert knowledge claims for itself the right to unconditionally judge and teach others. People are considered ignorant, and therefore need to be guided and manipulated by those who know better. Today's political ideologies, whether on the right or the left, reinforce this illusion even while they claim to speak on behalf of the people. To overcome this delusion, we need a new political imagination. This can only emerge through dialogues that bring into discussion such new ideas and questions as do not find a place in the debates in the media or circulate in learned journals. Such a dialogue works by putting trust in the people, in their knowledge, and in their movements.

Who are the people? People are those whom we meet in homes, in the streets, in the markets, at work, and when we travel. Farmers, factory workers, laborers, artisans, retailers, hawkers, housewives, students, teachers, job seekers, job-holders, the old and the young – they are all people. We may also call them the ordinary people. On the other hand, there are some whom we never meet or perhaps can never meet – people who have power. They choose to meet us only when they think we need to be chastised or guided.

However, the ordinary people whom we can and do meet have knowledge - the knowledge to understand problems of society and the knowledge to make and reconstruct societies in ways that make life worth living. It is not as if there are no structures of power and authority among people - it is just that these are well distributed in society. And usually work for the good of all. When people have the power to shape their own destinies, we call that Swaraj. Viewed another way, Swaraj is the manifestation of what is innate in every human being. This innateness is rooted in caring for others and love for all. When a person realizes this innateness, his behaviour and actions follow accordingly, leading to a society that naturally proceeds towards Swaraj, where people build family and community based 'natural' structures. This is in contrast to the 'artificial' society being built today whose stated goal is to build efficiency but has no place for family or human relations, where people are powerless and life is not worth living.

How do we promote dialogues on knowledge in society towards a new political imagination? This question presupposes that knowledge in society provides a sufficient basis for a new political imagination, namely Swaraj. This is the world of knowledge which houses Swadeshi Darshan. Therefore a constructive dialogue in this session can help provide the basis for a concrete, contemporary concept of Swaraj.

As was demonstrated by Dharampal in his work on 18th century Indian society, village communities across India seem to have managed their affairs largely without the influence of centralized governance. Each village or a group of villages tailored its management to its own specific conditions and characteristics, leading to a varied governance structure built around shared attributes of equitable and just distribution of resources for common good. However, the colonial administration uniformly categorized these local governance mechanisms as Panchayats, deeming them unsuitable for their purpose. Therefore, they began to introduce modern state institutions within the villages initiating a progressive set of reforms in Panchayats that persist to this day. Despite this, traditional governance mechanisms continue to operate albeit hampered by the newly imposed structures of state institutions.

There are numerous examples where the administrative, judicial and political frameworks of state institutions prove inadequate to handle village affairs, while traditional communities adeptly manage them outside these institutional structures. These communities autonomously resolve conflicts, oversee family and community issues, manage temples and their associated festivals, maintain community and traditional Mathas, Chatras, teach and learn traditional and local performing arts, practice traditional medicine and manage agriculture and allied activities. Importantly, the manner in which these activities are conducted varies from one village to another, indicating that Swaraj remains alive in them though in a rather altered form.

Contemporary accounts of villages, derived from colonial accounts and framework tend to misrepresent these as nonexistent or corrupt and regressive. This mis-characterisation underscores the need to reevaluate these indigenous models of governance and explore the true essence of Swaraj.

Any discussion on the idea of Swaraj for a new political imagination will be incomplete without a serious consideration of what Swaraj means in the twenty first century as we enter its second quarter, in a context where nationalism seems to have come under serious stress and national sovereignty is no longer guaranteed nor sacred, and when global finance capital is dictating terms to even super powers. Therefore while there is bound to be skepticism about any dialogue on Swaraj, we should focus on what Swaraj could possibly mean today given these constraints.

Moderator/ Chairman : Krishna Gandhi

Presentations:

1. J S Sadananda, M S Chaitra “Understanding Grama”

2. Shanmukha A, Praveen TL “ The Models of Swaraj: Nature of Indian Villages and Nyayapanchayats”

Panel discussion:

1. Sunil Sahasrabudhey “ Towards a new and contemporary Political Imagination”

2. Praveen T L “Revisiting Swaraj: Native Models of Sustainable Living”

3. Sumanas Koulagi

4. Rajiv Sangal “ Swaraj: Building Community, Developing Compassion and Increasing Sustainability”

**********************

Back to Top

Theme/Session-5

Knowledge in Development Discourse, and Peoples Movements

Working Group : Umashankari Narendranath (Convener), O Ramasubramanian (Co-Convener),

Rajeev Sangal, Rahul Goswami, Sunil Sahasrabudhey, Veena Joshi

For the purpose of this Convention, the theme “Knowledge in Development & People’s Movement” deals with three critical areas and their intersections: the emergence of neo-localism as a response to globalisation's failures, the epistemological tensions in agricultural systems where traditional knowledge confronts modern paradigms, and the inherent violence in development processes that marginalise indigenous wisdom. Through these lenses, the contemporary development narratives are questioned while exploring how knowledge hierarchies impact communities. The discussion aims to reimagine development frameworks that honor local knowledge systems while addressing the challenges of epistemic injustice in our rapidly changing world.

The theme “Knowledge in Development & People’s Movements” interrogates the intersectionality of epistemic hierarchies, development paradigms, and indigenous knowledge systems through three critical discursive frameworks. First, it examines the emergence of neo-localism as a counter-narrative to the hegemonic globalisation discourse of the 1990s, positioning it within the context of three decades of economic reforms that have exacerbated structural inequities in India. This dialectic between the local and global raises fundamental questions about the commons' knowledge and its reclamation in contemporary socio-economic structures.

The second framework delves into the epistemological violence inherent in modern agricultural systems, where cultural knowledge systems are subordinated to mechanistic, capital-driven paradigms of food production and food security. It problematises the binary between traditional farming knowledge and contemporary agricultural discourse, examining how multilateral organisation's' definitions of food security systematically marginalise the livelihoods of farmers and the cultural dimensions and indigenous agricultural wisdom.

The final framework critically examines development as a vector of violence. By examining the intersection of gender, food systems, and epistemic violence in defining gender, the embedded power structures within development discourse is deconstructed while questioning the potential for transformative change within existing paradigms.

Together, the aim is to construct a critical examination of knowledge systems in relation to development, challenging conventional narratives while proposing alternative epistemological approaches that centre marginalised voices and indigenous knowledge/wisdom; thereby shaping a crucial intervention in contemporary debates about development, sustainability, and democratisation.

The session had three modules:

Module-1. “Localisation and Decentralisation”, having three speakers/themes:

1. Chitra Sahasrabudhey “Loka Vidya or people’s knowledge and its relevance in the contemporary world”

2. Baskar Manimegalai “Inequality inherent in the architecture of the Indian state”

3. A.R.Vasavi “The challenges before the contemporary Indian society and the need for diversity in knowledge.”

Module- 2. “Epistemological violence inherent in modern agricultural systems”, having two speakers:

4. Kavitha Kuruganti and Girish Sahasrabudhey “The debate around genetically modified (GM) crops, and the current and past farmers’ movements”.

Module-3. “Structural violence in knowledge and development discourse”, having three speakers/themes.

5. Tashi Choedup “The redefinition of gender”:

6. DU Saraswathi “Women’s knowledge of food systems”

7. Rajni Bakshi “Violence and non-violence in development discourse.”

*******************

Back to Top

Theme/Session-6

Artificial Intelligence and the Knowledge question

Working Group: Rajeev Sangal (Convener), Avinash Jha, J K Suresh, Sunil Sahasrabudhey,

M Sasikumar, Shatrunjay Rawat , Nachiket Udupa

AI or Artificial Intelligence is much talked about these days. There are predictions that it will enter into all aspects of our lives - from production to education and health, from distribution of products to information and entertainment, from social affairs and justice to politics and societal decision making.There are fears of centralization of power, disempowerment of users, bias (unintended as well as planned), breach of privacy, loss of personal data, malevolent uses, malfunction of technology, and finally going all the way to takeover of human kind. Justifications for technology come from benevolent uses of technology - producing better health, mitigating disasters, performing of hazardous tasks by machines, to providing comfort, and indeed life without any work!

What about AI and Knowledge? What knowledge do AI systems possess today? Is it explicit or tacit (including intuition)? If it includes both types of knowledge can the machine reason with it transparently? Are systems explainable? Can they carry out a dialogue? Or the systems are completely opaque? If so, what are the implications - what new problems does this raise? How do we deal with bias that might come into AI due to machine learning based on data? Who takes responsibility, if an AI system has bias?

Existing data reflects inequities and injustices of the past. Would AI systems, which use the same data for machine learning, end up propagating and promoting these? Human society has been evolving, at least yearning for equity and justice, non-violence, truth, etc. Valiant attempts have been made in history to build better societies. Would AI mean the end of evolution of society, leading to staying stagnant in status quo?

AI technology, like any other technology, would get used by the powerful and the privileged first. Would it lead to greater, even unprecedented, centralization of power? Today, the big technology companies already possess private data on hundreds of millions of users, which they use to manipulate them. This manipulation is not limited to their buying habits and showing of directed advertisements, but is moving towards control over their thoughts. Control is exercised on circulation of certain types of messages, especially containing negative opinions and emotions. AI embedded in algorithms, is already playing a role. With the future developments of AI, such manipulative power would get deployed with even greater ferocity, but quietly.

AI promises comforts, and a life without any work. In this scenario, the human beings become totally dependent on machines. It raises the ultimate question about what is the human "purpose"? Life with food, clothing and shelter, including play and entertainment, but bereft of emotions and relationships and without any meaning - would it lead to happy human beings and a life worth living?

Panel speakers and topics:

    1. Avinash Jha “AI touching lives of ordinary people”

    2. Sasikumar M “ Explicit coding of knowledge to opacity now”

    3. Shatrunjay Rawat “Bias in AI systems and the problem it creates”

    4. Nachiket Udupa “Who takes accountability for AI systems?”

    5. Suresh JK “AI technology and Centralisation of power”

    6. Rajeev Sangal “ Discussion Summary, and Human purpose and AI”

************************

Back to Top

Theme/Session-7

Art and the Knowledge Question

Working Group: Sushruthi Santhanam (Convener), A Sashikanth (Co-convener), Avinash Jha,

Sunil Sahasrabudhey, Udayan Bajpayee, Rajeev Sangal

Here, we attempt to interrogate the territory of knowledge beyond the usual discourses of science, technology and social sciences, which have been left unexplored in the mainstream institutionalised academic spaces. Knowledge conceived of in the image of Science has an impervious boundary guarded by an epistemology that claims to be more and more universal. In this, universe knowledge is separated from aesthetics, ethics and any meaningful social experience. Whereas art seems to build bridges between mundane reality and intangible worlds ofideas, between many the perceptions of reality.We turn our attention back to knowledge as a human potential to create experiences. For it is only in the domain of the arts (besides religion) that society has seen a persistent reinstatement of the human experience as the foremost purpose of human endeavour.What is being explored here through the medium of art, is a conception of knowledge that can capture the paradigm of social life of ordinary human beings beyond production andconsumption. As truth and meanings, collective visioning of life, reflection and contemplations of common people have all been better expressed through artistic intelligence. In India there still exist several instances of such continuous social traditions in kalā (here used to refer to all creative work in kala and karigari). Historically this society made grand temples and complex lyrical compositions, iron and exquisite cloth as part of its engaged seeking of a sāmājik drsti. Now we critically examine these practices to help us work towards a more encompassing theory of knowledge that better represents human effort and the human condition.

No critical enquiry into a domain of practice can be undertaken without fully understanding its epistemic evolution. We approach the epistemic space of kala neither by looking at it through lens of traditions nor as products of genius and singular creativity. It attempts it through an essentially Indian understanding of Kala as a deliberate and legitimatesocial engagement whose primary purpose is to create collective experience. This is achieved in some cases through systematised knowledge of how to evoke (emotional state) rasa anūbhuti and even deeper states of consciousness, and in a majority of cases its grammar and repertoire are simply embedded in social custom and ritual.

Reflections on this theme will reveal insights on culture, creativity, consciousness, historicity, truth, agency, discipline, practice, faith, subjectivity, grammar, freedom or tradition. But beyond such critical agenda lies the mechanics of artistry, of the extraordinary discipline and adherence to codes and technical frameworks that open out subjective experiences; modes of knowing which are more vested in the body of the artists and the community of listeners, beholders, knowers of art, rather than in the texts; modes of work (technique), play (samvāda) and negotiation (consensus) creating the space for the samāja to exercise a collective ownership of the practice and performance of art.

Speakers/Topics

1. Sushruthi Santhanam – Introducing the theme “Art and Knowledge” (video).

2. Banatanwi Dasmahapatra - “The Role of Design and Aesthetics in the Creative Growth of an Educational Institution - Impact and Relevance in Society”

3. S. Jayachandran - “Universal Dance Fundamentals and Their Regional Expressions: A Study of Indian Traditions”

4.Udayan Vajpeyi - “From Music to Painting : The Strange yet not so strange Tales of Pradhaans.”

5. Dakshinamoorthy Sthapati - “Visual Expressions and Experiences in the Sculptural Heritage of India – an Introduction”.

6. Sashikant Ananthachari - “Villi Bharatham- Performance traditions in Mahabharata from Tamilnadu” (Film Screening and talk)

7. Ustad Bahauddin Dagar - “On embodied learning and playing with tradition” (A talk and performance of Dhrupad on the Rudraveena.)

*************************

Back to Top

Theme/Session-8

India as a Voice from the Global South: The Knowledge Dimension.

Working Group: A V Balasubramanian (Convener), Amit Basole, Sunil Sahasrabudhey,

Srishtee Bajpai, Chetan Singai

The Background:

The larger historical context for a discussion on this topic has to start with the recognition that in the pre Columbus era for well over twenty centuries or more, India has had rich and extensive links with her Eastern and Southern neighbours in Asia and also perhaps across the Western waters and lands with parts of Africa and Middle East. The exchanges were over vast and varied domains of knowledge and culture including (but not limited to) – language, grammar, literature, medicine, agriculture, natural resources, astronomy, mathematics, material science, navigation and ship building. Such links and exchanges seem to have continued through religious exchanges and pilgrimages of Buddhist Scholars- this has continued through centuries and institutions from Kanchipuram in the South to Nalanda bear ample testimony to these links. Trade and interaction through the seas are also recorded extensively and may have reached its peak around the 11th century during the period of Rajendra Chola.

One often encounters a response to this interaction which is a mixture of wonder and a sense of admiration which has survived in some form even into the modern era. The Chinese diplomat, scholar and philosopher Hu Shih (1891-1962) is quoted as having stated-“India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border”.

After Indian independence.

The dawn of India’s Asian- African Internationalism of the modern era can perhaps be traced to the “Asian Relations Conference” which was convened in New Delhi between 23rd March and 17th April 1947. It was the eve of Indian Independence – an era of declining colonial empires and emerging independent States across the global South. The Conference was attended by representatives from 28 Asian and other countries and had observers from six other regions. The major topics for discussion were naturally those of immediate concern such as – transition from colonial to national economy, agriculture reconstruction and industrial development, national movements for freedom, etc. Even at that time ,the conference raised concerns from the West of a possible “Asian Block”, and Jawaharlal Nehru had to affirm that –“.....the Conference would not be opposed in any way to America or the Soviet Union or any other power or group of powers”.

Right from the early days of Indian independence ,developments in India were watched with keen interest by the Asian and African neighbours .It was as if we were under a lens, as a “test case” for the World at large to figure out if this whole experiment of decolonization would “ work” . Immediately after freedom in 1947, India faced severe food shortages and the memories of the 1943 famine were still fresh. India not only averted a famine but also managed to avoid mass hunger (though with several ups and downs ). The general elections of 1952 were held peacefully in what was recognized as “The Worlds Largest Democratic Experiment” with one sixth of the World’s population casting their votes! The next year Sudan invited the Chief Election Commissioner of India Sukumar Sen to conduct their first general election in 1953 . It was expected that India would be a strong voice of the South for several reasons, including her economic and military strength , vast capabilities in many sectors of modern science ,technology and Industry.

For many of India’s African and Asian neighbours , India still continues to be a land that they look

up to -- while the reasons may be many, the following are among the few that find repeated mention:

1. India is a “ robust democracy”. Our elections are held regularly, the transfer of power after elections have always been smooth and peaceful and our armed forces have never interfered with our political process.

2. The way we are managing our tremendous and complex diversity – religious, linguistic, ethnic etc.-- as a modern nation state is keenly watched. While some still view it as a “work in progress”, it is believed to have implications and lessons not only for our Southern neighbours but also for the rest of the World.

3. We have made tremendous progress in various sectors of our economy, built extensive infrastructure and moved towards self sufficiency in food, agriculture and other key sectors; while concerns of equity are still very serious ,the progress is indeed significant.

4. India is acknowledged as a friend who can be counted upon to share what she has with her Southern neighbours. To cite an example ,India has been hailed as the “World’s Pharmacy”. Our pharmaceutical sector is a major source of life saving drugs at low prices to countries that need this the most -- a role that we have continued to play right up to the era of the COVID pandemic. While there is a lot more that can be and ought to be done , there is no doubt that there is a very favourable disposition towards India.

Some questions and issues that need reflection

In terms of our links to the Global South what have we achieved since 1947 ? Can we hold a mirror to reflect upon what have we achieved , how has this fared in comparison with the expectations, our own and those of our Southern neighbours?

Some of the specific questions to be reflected upon would include –

1. What is the current shape and status of exchange of knowledge, traditions and experiences between the nations of the South- could we look into some specific domains such as health and medicine, governance and justice, natural resources management, etc.

2. Today much of what India knows/believes/experiences about the South is heavily coloured and dominated by scholarship from the West and received through Western media and news agencies, and in English and other European languages. How can we move towards better communication and deeper mutual understanding between us and the South directly, without intermediaries?

3. Besides academic research and scholarship in areas like Science and Technology, we also need to understand the implications and impact of our knowledge and traditions including music, dance, arts, crafts and cultural traditions ,food, yoga and so on in our relationship with the South .

4. There are also emerging voices in India and the South that are involved in a deeper

examination and understanding of ideas of state , governance , knowledge Systems etc., drawing from their own experiences and values which are significantly different from the thinking from the North ( both mainstream and alternative !!). Some of these are from outside the formal institutions and academia and their content and implications need to be reflected upon.

5. How does one provide support and strength and be more effective as a “ Voice of the South” without acquiring a “big brother” attitude? It appears that suspicions of Indian or Chinese Hegemony held by other nations (and mutually between India and China) are serious and cannot be wished away. We also need to move away from an approach that sees the South solely as a market for various emerging goods, services and technologies from India.

6. Even after Independence right down to the recent times it is seen that ideas from the Indian freedom movement rooted in Gandhian thinking -- Swaraj and Non-violent approaches to political actions -- have continued to inspire people from different parts of the world including Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and more recently perhaps the Arab Spring. A strong articulation and development of these ideas in our country in today's context can also be a valuable contribution from India to the global South.

Speakers/topics:

                                A V Balasubramanian: Introduction, background and an overview

 1. Sunil Sahasrabudhey: “Mahatma Gandhi and Knowledge in Society are the two pillars

on which India’s Voice may be constructed.”

2. Amit Basole: “A just 21st century can only be imagined via alternative Knowledge Paradigms.”

3. Shrishtee Bajpai: “Welcoming Diverse and Pluriversal World views.”

4. Chetan Singai: “International Relations as an academic discipline in the global south:Beyond the paradigm of Eurocentrism”

*************************

Back to Top

Go Back