प्रमोद सदाशिव मोहरीर

सर्वदूर पसरलेली, व्यापक चळवळ, आहे त्या परिस्थितीत आवश्यक आणि सकारात्मक  बदल घडवून आणण्याची; आणि त्यादृष्टीने वातावरणनिर्मितीची ताकद असणे, कोणत्याही विरोधाला न जुमानता! म्हणजेच 'क्रांती'!

   आज अॉगस्ट क्रांती दिन! अशी क्रांती इतिहासात अनेक जणांनी घडवून आणली. इंग्रजांच्या अमानुष अत्याचाराला न जुमानता, न डगमगता, खंबीरपणे विरोध करणाऱ्यांची, शहीद क्रांतिकारकांची आज तीव्रतेने आठवण होत आहे. मन त्यांना मनःपूर्वक शतशः वंदन करीत आहे. प्रत्येक भारतीयाला ही महान व्यक्तित्वें माहीत आहेतच! 'देशप्रेम' ही सर्वोच्च आणि व्यापक भावना!

   आज आपण स्वतंत्र आहोत; ते या महनीय व्यक्तींमुळेच! जे-जे देशाचे सुपुत्र; ज्या-ज्या क्षेत्रात अतुलनीय कामगिरी करतात; त्यांच्या यशाबरोबरच देशाचेही, कुळाचेही नाव मोठे होत असते. मग ते कुठलेही क्षेत्र असो; क्रीडा असो, मनोरंजन असो, शेती असो, ज्ञान-विज्ञान असो! आपल्या भारत देशात या सर्वच क्षेत्रात Talent ची कमी नाही.

    असाच एक विचारांची क्रांती घडवून आणणारा महान शास्त्रज्ञ मला माहीत आहे. माझा मामा, 'प्रमोद सदाशिव मोहरीर.' 'मोहरीर' कुळाचा 'क्रांतीसूर्य'! 'सदाशिव' आजोबांचा अभिमानास्पद प्रथम सुपुत्र! शांतीस्वरुप भटनागर, मित्रा, जगदीशचंद्र बोस, अशा अनेक पुरस्कारांचा धनी असणारा प्रमोद मामा बुद्धिमत्तेने तर विशाल होताच पण मनानेही विशाल होता. तासन्तास तो अभ्यास करीत असे. अत्यंत कठीण परिस्थितीत त्याने जिद्दीने अभ्यास केला. 'वाडा' संस्कृतीत वाढलेला, घरी वीज नाही, कंदिलाच्या प्रकाशात अभ्यास करणारा, पायात चपला नसतांना, नागपूरच्या, तळपत्या, रणरणत्या ऊन्हात, डांबरी रस्त्यांवरुन शाळेत परीक्षा द्यायला जाणारा! तो जितका बुध्दिमान होता, तितकाच निगर्वीही; Totally down to earth, अत्यंत साधा राहणारा, मनाने निर्मळ! जन्माने प्रथम, शाळेत प्रथम, बुध्दीमत्तेच्या क्षेत्रात प्रथम, गुणांनेही प्रथम, वागणुकीत प्रथम! अगदी प्रथमेश होता. मराठी, हिंदी, इंग्रजी, संस्कृत या भाषांवर त्याचे प्रभुत्व होते आणि अभ्यासही खूप होता. तो एकपाठी होता.

    प्रमोद मामाने अनेक भाषणे लिहिली. तो माझ्या आईबरोबर नेहमी पत्रांद्वारे संपर्कात होता. आईच्या सांगण्यावरुन, त्याने त्याचे एक भाषण आईला पाठविले होते; ७ मार्च १९९९ चे त्याचे पत्र होते. मुंबईच्या Conference मधील अनेक वक्त्त्यांची भाषणे त्याने पाठविली, त्यापैकी त्याचे एक मोठे भाषण मी Type करीत आहे. Group वर क्रमशः पाठवित आहे. आजच्या या अॉगस्ट क्रांती दिनाचे शुभ औचित्य साधून वैचारिकदृष्ट्या क्रांती घडवून आणणाऱ्या प्रमोद मामाच्या स्मृतींना भावपूर्ण नमन.....

                

     मृदुला पाटखेडकर.

        ९/८/ २०१६.

 Taking Science to Society

     P. S. Moharir

National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, 500 007, India.

   1) Introduction

    The topic alloted to me is "Taking Science to Society." it has three different meanings, possibly at three different levels. At the most mundane level it means taking the modern facilities, services and products engendered by science in collaboration with technology to weaker sections of the society. It is, of course, assumed that these desiderata automatically become available to the other sections of society, or come into being for that specific purpose. The fulfilment of this first meaning is mediated through or is obstructed by the social structure, which may need proper redesign. At another level it means taking the scientific, that is, empirical and rational attitudes and value systems to all sections of society, aspects of social life and domains of social interaction. Here the emphasis is on all sections of society, because the default assumption that some sections of society have already embraced the scientific attitude, even in many matters, if not all, may not stand close scrutiny. At yet another level, it means taking the methods of science, such as objectivity, hypothetico-deduction, and critical scrutiny to the study of society, i.e. to disciplines such anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, political science, etc.

     If we work for taking science to society, it may be based on the assessment that science is obviously desirable for mankind. It is necessary that we do not take such an enthusiastic stand. Like any other humans activity, science can be both good or bad in itself and in its consequences through human actions, wise or otherwise. Just as writers proposed utopias based on the large-scale application of science, they have also painted dystopias such as the Brave New World or 1984. The latter may be attributed to the misapplication of science. Whether the utilization of science is classified as application or misapplication is basically a value judgment, as human purposes span a wide multi-dimensional spectrum and are essentially ideological. Therefore, the view that science is a wand of miracles, that everything is possible once science is properly mastered, must be regarded as naive or superstitious. Superstitions are bad even if they are secular. Therefore, we should scrutinize the scientific utopias from the perspective of practicability and guard against the dystopias (Kurtz 1994).

 Science can be used or abused due to ideological motivations. A scientific finding is a password of acceptability in many circles. An example is that of Eric Burt, who is regarded a father of sociology. He did a study of twins who were reared separately and on that basis established that contribution by environmental factors is nonexistent and that genetic determinism is irreversible. His findings came handy for or confused many governments to drastically truncate the educational facilities for the lower rungs of society, on the argument that the expenditure on such schemes was bound to be non productive. Now it is considered as established (Gould 1984) that Burt fudged data, they were collected for him by his secretary Ms. Conway, who did not even exist, and so on (pp. 20-21).

Stephen J. Gould has given many examples of how racial bias, emigration rules and military entrance tests are based on scientific theories supported by data which can be proved to be fudged, selectively presented, misinterpreted, and so on. The mischief is eventually exposed and admitted after much debate, as science is amenable to discussions and revision of opinions and conclusions. But generations are already sacrificed on the altar of these indefensible theories. Stories of Morton, Broca, Louis Bolk, Eysenck, Lombardo, Yerkes, etc. Critically narrated by Gould indicate how sciences and concepts such as craniometry, physiometry, neoteny, sociometry, etc can be or get manipulated. He quotes (p. 21) Condorcet as saying that such scientists "make nature herself an accomplice in the crime of political ineqality. It is an amusing thought that the enlightenment book of Gould appeared in an year to which the dystopia of George Orwell alluded. One of the indications is that in social matters scientists should be more circumspect, and more closely scrutinized and their views subjected to widespread debates, particularly when their theories and findings are applicable or have bearing on social policies. More explicitly, there is still scope and necessity for the scientists to be more objective, empirical and rational.

2) Preconditions of Progress and Existing Conditions

Science can be taken to society rather readily, or effortlessly when it can grow in that society. Some social conditions are conducive for the growth of science and some are detrimental. "......the most important and the fruitful periods of scientific advance were those in which the class barrier was at least partially broken down and the practical and the learned men mixed on equal terms," wrote Bernal(1969, I, p. 50). Such things happen where there is a social upheaval, such as Renaissance, a strong reform movement or revolution. Thus science is not furthered by a stable stratified social structure. Similarly, some societies can be based more on faith than on reason. Reconciliation of faith and reason is possible only if one is allegorized and the other is distorted. As Bernal (1969, I, p. 261) Pointed out both these mechanisms come in the way of clear and honest thinking, needed for the growth of science and progress of societies. In faith-ridden stratified societies taking science to society takes greater effort and motivation, as this process is vociferously opposed. The opposition then is based on the argument that whereas faith has solution to all the problems, science does not have. Then a strong argument has to be made that the problems perceived by the faithful are not relevant problems at all, and the solutions offered or sought are no solutions either. It is necessary to appreciate that science has changed the canvas of our life, it has engendered many questions which the earlier generations did not need to consider or could even not have articulated. 

St. Louis Committee for Nuclear Information (CNI) has been busy in educating the public about nuclear tests, fallout effects etc. Automic Energy Commission of USA (AEC) frequently contradicted the information provided by CNI to the public. But frequently, when the debate was about specific scientific facts, AEC had to retract or keep silent. The story of these encounters between CNI scientists on the one hand, and AEC scientists on the other, has been told in detail by Barry commoner (1966, pp. 112-114). This means that the scientists working for a particular agency do not make public utterances, that would embarrass the agency, and in the process even make false statements, when necessary. Thus, it would be necessary to free at least some scientists from the government control, so that the relevant scientific facts come out in the course of a debate between the two groups of scientists. It must also be noted that the statements by scientists need not be accorded any extraordinary credibility, just because they are made by "scientists."

   Countries, wherein there is a systematic suppression of most of the individuals, or even all of them, in the name of some abstract principles, put on a pedestal, are prone to be internally weakened. That is because in them most necessary modes of progress and evolution are blocked. Such countries are readily subjugated by others from even great distances (Roy In Parikh 1987, p. 54). That is what happened in and to india. Blaming this on foreigners, their deceit, superior prowess or chance unfavourable circumstances, is normally an attempt to evade objective circumspection. It is not that these causes do not operate, but their effects on and in a healthy, free and progressive society are normally temporary, short-lived and readily overcome (Roy In Parikh 1987, p. 58), as there is no internal or internalized weakness. India was not conquered, it meekly surrendered. Its weakness would allow it no other possibility. 

To give a funny  but extremely illuminating example (Feynman 1985), some Rabbis once asked Richard Feynman whether electricity was fire. The latter first wanted to know how the question arose. This is always a good question. The former informed him that the Talmud forbids use of fire on a Saturday. Therefore, if electricity was fire, the Rabbis would not be using the electrical appliances on Saturdays. Talmud could not have raised this question and hence it remains unanswered if you look to Talmud for wisdom and direction. Thus, the question did not relate to contemporary life, but only to an old text. The Rabbis did not need to understand any physics, they only needed a ready classification, so as to decide what to do or skip when. Another point that is illustrated by this story is that ethics forbids. Ethics of the olden times could not have forbidden an act which was not conceivable then. That is, ethics must relate to the modern context, if it has to have a contemporary relevance. This is an important thought engendered, not by science, if you like, but certainly by the ever-growing list of new materials, products, situations and contexts that did not exist earlier.

     

Dreze and Gazdar (1988) have documented the problems faced by Uttar Pradesh (pp. 39-42). The under five mortality rate around 140 per thousand, second position from the top in India in crude death rate, the third position from the bottom in life expectancy, around 930 maternal deaths per lakh, female literacy rate below 1.5 percent among rural scheduled castes, in almost thirty percent of the districts, low and declining female/male ratio in the population, are only some of the depressing examples. They also have shown with empirical data that object poverty is not the cause (p. 47) of these ills. In fact, in regions in which the material affluence increased, many of these problems worsened. These problems are more or less a direct result of the structure of the society and the attitudes entrenched in that structure. For example, families are unwilling to send girls to schools, unless they are taught by women (p. 61), even at the age of 7 to 8 (p. 69), and yet the proportion of women teachers is steadily going down. It is pertinent to note that in a state where there was so much humanist task to do, a movement with an express objective of demolishing a historical structure built by some past ruler was launched, fanned and strengthened with organized support from other states for decades.