Page 197 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

174 A. Sharma

Let me explain. It might be that sources of social change are rarely systemic and
often spring from out-of-the-way nooks and crannies and interstitial social and ter-
ritorial spaces (Mann 1986). Thus, impetus for change may come from a small
school in Malawi as in George Glasson’s work or a village community in India
(Singh 2008). But in a scenario where political parties and even states buckle under
the might of globalized capitalism, one has to look for alternate, innovative ways to
ensure that many little changes can add up to something meaningful in terms of not
just withstanding the onslaught of globalization from above but also preserving
knowledge and practices that promote justice, peace, and a sustainable existence for
all – now and in the future (Brecher et al. 2000). There was a time when votaries for
change could think of social change in terms of political mobilization for capturing
state power through democratic or revolutionary means. But globalized capitalism
has long withered the boundaries and powers of the state. As Appadurai (2000) said,
“Global capital in its contemporary form is characterised by strategies of predatory
mobility (across both time and space) that have vastly compromised the capacities
of actors in single locations even to understand, much less to anticipate or resist,
these strategies. Though states (and what we may call ‘state fractions’) vary in how
and whether they are mere instruments of global capital, they have certainly eroded
as sites of political, economic, and cultural sovereignty” (p. 16). So, what must a
person do if she wishes to see her efforts outlast her involvement and contribute
something worthwhile to wider progressive social change?
Well, based on my own experiences in such efforts and a bricolage-like perspective
stitched together from varied sources, I can foresee the following four interlinked
possibilities:
1. Working for creating supportive institutional, material, and policy conditions:
There was a brief period in the mid-1990s during which I worked as a social for-
estry worker in a nongovernment organization, the Agha Khan Rural Support
Program, which aimed at rejuvenating common property resources, such as village
commons, ponds, and groundwater, in rural communities of a draught-prone region
in western India. There was a village called Madargarh that had about ten acres of
common pasture land. The land was severely degraded as it was used by all (for
cattle and sheep grazing) and cared for by none. I, along with my colleagues and a
few concerned denizens of the village, tried real hard to regenerate the land by
planting grass and tree species that local people preferred for grazing and other
purposes. However, we failed in terms of long-term sustainability of our efforts.
Looking back, it seems to me that our failure resulted largely because of the fol-
lowing reasons: (a) We could not create village-level institutional mechanisms
that could ensure shared protection and sustainable usage. (b) Material circum-
stances of landless, poorer families did not allow them to stop or limit their
²
dependence on the only source of fodder for their animals . (c) There was little

2 Richer families could use agriculture residue from their own fields for fodder, and hence were
not that dependent upon village commons. Most of them were thus willing to limit their usage of
the common land for some initial period during which planted saplings needed extra protection.