Industrialization in India

"Smoke is an indication of work . . . Therefore, we are proud of our smoke."

Reactions to the thoughtless acquisition and utilization of introduced technology in Southern India.

News From Mongolia

"Developing countries must not and will not allow themselves to be distracted from the imperatives of economic amelioration and increase by the illusory dream of an atmosphere free from smoke or a scenery innocent of chimney stacks." -A.K.N. Reddy

In A.K.N. Reddy's essay, "Technology, Development, and the Environment: An Analytical Framework,"which was included in Ramachandra Guha's communal Ecology, he asserted that modern societies are developing and utilizing technologies that are dangerous to their environmental and communal ecosystems without recognition of the possible risks. He also addresses how the technologies of the advanced world are, "...in the process of heavy replacement to the developing world," and the increased degradation that these societies have undergone as a result. In response, I intend to address the essay's major points, as well as apply them to my surface observations of the impact that such technologies have had on Southern India.

Reddy began his essay with a synopsis of the major annotation against modern technology. He first divided these criticisms into three categories- environmental, economic, and social- and then applied them separately to fit the singular contexts of advanced and the developing countries. In my use of Reddy's framework in application to my observations of Southern India, I have allowed the introductory three annotation classes to stand, but I have omitted the later distinction; as I believe that, in the intervening years since Reddy's narrative was written (1979), the impacts of modern technology have had similar impacts (on a varying scale) on both sets of societies.

The first of Reddy's criticisms focused on the environmental impacts of modern technology. He wrote that the influx of such technology has had a horrendous impact on the natural world and this, in turn, has not, ". . . Resulted in an environment more conducive to the corporeal and reasoning well-being of man." Reddy goes on to say that the modern technologies which humans have created and are currently implementing on a mass scale are threatening us in all aspects of our lives. He states that, ". . . With the expanding deployment of modern technology, man's welfare has been threatened by the escalating levels of pollution- pollution of the air that he breathes, the water that he drinks, the food that he eats, the quietness that he needs, and the beauty of nature that he enjoys."

The above statements in regard to the subsequent environmental impact of modern technology are effortlessly apparent to anything who has ever tried to investment down Bangalore's traffic packed streets. The shear amount of automobiles, rickshaws, and busses have long ago exceeded the city's carrying capacity, and it regularly takes over an hour to trip what would otherwise be a short journey. I would theorize that it would be much quicker to walk within the city rather than use communal vehicle if it were not for the fact that it regularly takes over ten minutes to simply cross a street. an additional one consequent of this traffic influx is that the air is wholly choked with automobile exhaust. During rush hour the exhaust cloud is so thick that it often times becomes difficult to see through it to the other side of the street.

Bangalore's exhaust forms a thick blanket over the whole city and its nearnessy is ever-present- its smell, taste, and grit permanently barrage one's sensory faculties. These emissions cause lungs to ache and many of the city's residents often wake at night gasping for breath. The effects of long-term exposure to this pollution can scarcely be fathomed.

The next annotation that Reddy acknowledges has to do with the fact that new technologies cause economic disparities which impact all spheres of industrializing society. In a culture that is centered upon modern technology, the capability to passage it is verily vital for an private to be able to participate in the macro-economy. In order for one to be able to passage the new technologies they must be a member of the singular wealthy and comfortable classes who, essentially, control it. This in turn causes major divisions in the middle of the haves- who use new technologies to their ever expanding advantage- and the have nots- who are surface of the technological pail. Reddy wrote, "and thus, one comes to the next turn of the spiral . . . The increased inequality resulting from the introductory unequal passage to the new technologies stimulates the amelioration of supplementary advances in technology which will then accentuate the inequality even more. This intensity of class divisions also manifests itself in the dispersal of resources. In a community that has profit as its customary aim, far more emphasis is settled upon the moneyed (technological) minority at the exclusion of the poorer (technology deficient) majority. This grossly unequal dichotomy causes, ". . . Technology to acknowledge more avidly to the needs of the rich while assigning lower priority to the needs of those who exert weaker demand." Henceforth, the wealthy are now able to verbalize their historic dominance over the resources of the world through their passage to technology.

In Bangalore, the unequal distribution of technological passage and the resulting class disparities is demonstrated with exceeding bluntness. The purveyor of wealth in this city is the information technology industry, and passage to technological knowledge is vital to reap the benefits of this economic sector. Throughout Bangalore, huge It skyscrapers rise out of stick and stone slums, the doors of business that cater to the technological classes are guarded against the intrusion of outsiders, and the complexes of the technological elite are walled off so that they cannot even be viewed, let alone accessed, by the commoner in the streets. The trickle-down consequent does not seem to control here, as money seems to stay within class sanctioned cyclic rounds; upper-class shops and restaurants for upper-class individuals, lower-class ones for the lower-class. In India, more than most other countries, it is passage to technology that allows one to derive and verbalize affluence; class is now not only maintained my communal lines but by technological ones as well. This dichotomy in the middle of the upper and lower classes seems to have created two wholly detach spheres of Indian community which are developing away from each other at an ever expanding pace. The culture, beliefs, and, most pertinently, experiences of the technology class are fast becoming so radically separate from that of traditional, rural India that communal upheaval is eminent.

The final annotation which Reddy makes is that introduced modern technologies carry with them major communal consequences for developing nations. Again, the customary focus of his conference was on the class aspects of this issue and how passage to technology is a major point of contention in the middle of assorted levels of communal strata. He pointed out that, even though the benefits of technology are out of reach for the poor, they still have, "to live cheek by jowl with its unpleasant features such as pollution." Reddy expands his annotation by stating that modern technology changes the face of labor by introducing mechanistic means of mass-production which cause the depreciation of customary craftsmanship. possible to the introduction of new technologies, employees who produce goods no longer need to possess any strong base of knowledge or skill; as their role is reduced to that of machine.

Under this new theory of industrial production, "only a few [workers] are required to possess a high degree of intellectual capability and/or by hand skills, while the barest minimum of brain and dexterity is startling from the vast majority of the working force. To this majority, 'soul destroying, meaningless, mechanical, monotonous, moronic work is an insult to human nature . . .'" The extended consequent of this is employment that is neither particularly difficult nor desirable and the creation of a sharp agency in the middle of work and free time time. This agency of time is in direct distinction to the customary manner of production, in which work was also a livelihood.

This degradation of work is also clearly obvious in Bangalore. Many of the top jobs in this city are in the It sector and, while they necessitate advanced degrees and evidence of learning, they are incredibly basic. In fact, in western countries, these jobs are only busy by citizen who have the barest minimum of instruction and skills. It is India's finest, most educated, youth who are enthralling upon It careers that can neither stimulate nor educate them any further. The communal impacts of having such large numbers of very educated citizen engaged in the most base of professions can only be speculated. But I feel that these effects can potentially seep deep down into the educational institutions of India. For where exactly is the impetus to educate citizen in establishment for moronic employment? I do not know.

A.K.N. Reddy's essay very keenly strikes the criticisms of modern technology right on the head. Although he authored it nearly thirty years ago, his warnings remain as pertinent today as they ever did; especially for developing nations such as India. As I have attempted to demonstrate, many of his speculations about how industrializing countries would dispell modern technology have verily occurred, and India is fast becoming the wasteland that Reddy prophesized. Most importantly, Reddy's writings force us to take a proverbial step back to take a look at where our community is going; they make us to realize that we do not have to destroy our ecosystem to survive, that we do not have to work menial jobs, that we canquestion the broader impacts of our communal actions. Who wants to wait ten minutes just to cross the street? Who wants to be permanently poisoned by exhaust fumes? Who wants to live in a deeply bi-furcated society? Who wants to live in a world without forests, pure water, and fresh air? Really, who? Then I must ask, in the spirit of R.K.N. Reddy, why are we doing this to ourselves?

*Written in the Autumn of 2006

Industrialization in India

Friends Link : todays world news headlines