5 questions for any tech project - An Approach to Technology interventions...

In the last days the persistent question that shoots up in the minds of several 'neutral' people regarding the methane (hydro carbon) extraction process is,
"are we taking a balanced view or is this driven by some kind of 'nay sayers' opinion on every issue?", 
"has it become fashionable to say 'no' to whatever technology based intervention?", 
"why is everyone who is not qualified in this sector also giving an opinion?", or 
"green groups and other groups politicising every issue utilizing the youth who have come to support such protests in large numbers since jallikattu protest?"

All these are valid considering the fact that many of these are emanating from people who are not necessarily favouring every new project of any kind or particularly in love with the great wisdom of the governemnts (both centre and state). People who are 'neutral' in their judgement of people's movements may naturally be consered neutral in judging the intentions of the governments as well.

So, here below I have tried to categorize and expand on some of the common questions that emanate from rural population regarding technology projects that are imposed on them -

1. INFORMED CHOICE IS A CITIZEN'S RIGHT: If you were to have a new 'development' project that insisted that you vacate your house in the interest of the nation and do some other profession, even if you were to agree to such a sacrifice, would you require that you are informed of the exact nature of the project so that you know what you have sacrificed your house and profession for? the farmers can't obviously be denied the same.

2. DEMANDING DIGNITY IN LIFE IS NOT BEING 'ANTI-DEVELOPMENT': In an earlier brick-and-mortar era, the lure of 'employment' was used to usurp rural land. rural population (often only called 'rural poor' in such project documents) would be told that they will not only be compensated for their land, but, will also get a job in the new project. very often they got jobs as watchmen or security staff in these industries to ward off others from entering the structures in their own lands.  however, with the very high mechanization, new industries cannot promise any such continuous commitment, instead, they force the farmer with a 'one time clearence' of his rights and get away with his compensation. no one with self-resepct likes to become a security guard, it is even worse to give up land an be relegated to urban gutter where they would eventually arrive. is it wrong to demand dignity in life?

3. DEVELOPMENT NEED NOT BE  ONE WAY TRAFFIC TO DESTRUCTION: 'what can we do without natural gas / methane / hydro carbon based future development?' is another question that crops up often. the question mroe important to ask is to what end is this energy source that is being sucked out of earth at considerable risk being put to use? we have no percievable increase in the industrial sector. our growth is still in the service sector which itself is facing dooms day because of the same automation. the oil and gas is required for the person who is desperate to stick to the dirty energy while the advanced countries have moved long since towards clean energy. we claim to be 'developed nation' now under the leadership of the great, then, why can't we adopt what the really developed nations adopt? clean energy instead of dirty, high risk energy?

4. KNOWLEDGE OF TECHNOLOGY ALONE IS NOT EXPERTISE: 'but, who are these people? are they suddenly experts in the field of natural gas extraction?', etc., brings back an old obstinate State position that only 'experts' are granted the legitimate space to express opinion on any 'scientific' or 'technology' based intervention even if it decapacitating a population of all future productivity. This is an outdated argument that has long since been discarded in other spaces. The early anti-GM groups were faced with this question, even before that the anti-Green Revolution people were faced with this question, today in other parts, the anti-Nuclear technology people are faced with this question. the salesmen of these technologies have even gone to the extent of naming all those who oppose them as 'eco-terrorists' whereas they are the real 'techno-murderers'. Today, the only science that matters is the science of sustainability. Is an effort or an intervention sustainable ecologically? is it equitable socially and is it feasible financially? are the questions the famous sustainable development triad of the 90s poses. the world has advanced and ratified the sustainable development goals as its development agenda. to technological investments of the 90s to a large extent are wasted as they were still celebrating the extent of technological ability to 'fix' global challenges. that is come to nought and there is no more technology fixes possible is the reality.
So, every intervention has 2 components - (1) the knowledge of 'technology' and (2) the knowledge of the locale.  The last 150 years history of technology intervention is replete with several failures due to lack of understanding of the locale. While the technology knowledge may arise from certain form of university degrees and experience in certain spces, the expertise of locale cannot come from anyone better than the local. To argue  that the local farmer doesn't have the expertise is to open up another question, "what does the scientist know about the location? its ecology? its society and its economy? does he provide his solutions with all of these in mind or does he do it with the limited knowledge of just the technology alone?"

5. DEMOCRACY AS PEOPLE POWER INCLUDES PROTEST: 'you can't move on if there is a protest every  day', is another common comment. People who protest are doing it not because they are all jobless, in fact, many of them probably are losing their daily earning in the process of protesting. They are also asserting their right to protest which is fundemantal to people's governance and democracy. In the last decade often we have heard the political think heads wonder aloud if 'democratic freedom process is good' for us in India. Totalitarian ways of re-casting our policies and in the process destroying the governance powers of the local bodies has been time and again attempted. Much of our touted, "achivement" of political class often is at the cost of democracy. People have never been asked what they want or how they want to move forward as individuals and as a community. The powers to determine the future of this country has been rested in a complex relationship between the bucreacracy that follows out-dated laws and processes and a political class that is increasingly neither ideologically rooted nor larger people-welfare inclined. This cannot be democracy. Constitution provides the space for a village level institution to govern itself and this they can do and have done for centuries, that is how India survived. It is important that the government appear before every grama sabha in any village and explain any new scheme it proposes in the village area before it is even entering the village for surveying. such a gesture would be considered respectful towards the citizen by the governance service provider. to sit in their tall offices and demand that the villager adhere to their whims and fancies because they say so is the most anti-democratic attitude and its outcome, whether it be a scheme, initiative, project or an event, needs to be seen as a threat to democracy.