RAZONES Y OPORTUNIDAD DEL PROGRAMA DE FAMILIAS A pesar del protagonismo de las familias, a pesar del

The purpose of the postcolonial science museum, at least what concerns the Indian scenario, has undergone a drastic transformation, aided by the changes inside the museum spaces and the approaches to science communication. If in the beginning (the 50s), the interest was to preserve the historic heritage of the empire, in the present the Indian science museum is more a science centre dedicated to provide affordable scientific education, and the creation of scientific citizens who will be able to address social needs innovatively. This opens multiple avenues for further research regarding the communication strategies required to harness the innovative potential of a large young population.

However, the question remains then: is the Council concerned with heritage and history of science in India? As we will see in the next section, one of the objectives of the NCSM, as mentioned in recent official documents, is to conduct research on traditional scientific knowledge and India’s heritage in science and technology. The NCSM has mounted

travelling exhibitions in the past on India’s culture of science. Most of the foreign professionals associated with the Smithsonian who have collaborated with NCSM have indicated in the interviews that the focus on presenting India’s contribution to science and technology can be discerned in many galleries and exhibitions. Saroj Ghose however provided a slightly different view on this issue. According to him, scientific heritage and scientific temper are two ends of the science communication spectrum. The Council is interested in the latter. Presenting the Indian scientific past in contemporary times is not only difficult but at times even impossible. There is the problem of finding artefacts and then creating a narrative around it. Decades of little research in staking claims of authorship and ownership of scientific discoveries have only hampered the chances of uncovering Indian contributions to world science. It would seem that the Council thus is more interested in what lies ahead, and not what is lost in the vestiges of the empire. After all, this new version of science will be something that Indians can agree upon and claim stake in its development. Emdadul Islam, the Director of the BITM, on the other hand, said that heritage should not only be seen through the prism of objects and material culture. Heritage also lies in the practices; and in this context, it might not be too farfetched to argue that ‘promotion of scientific temper’, a phrase also enshrined as a fundamental duty of every Indian citizen in the Indian Constitution, is the intangible heritage of the still young Indian state, whose importance we are only likely to understand better in the years to come.

I shall conclude this section by returning to the initial point of the birth of Indian democracy and the early optimism (which is still evidently present in the rhetoric of the NCSM reports as well as its institutional culture revealed through the interviews), recalling Arjun Appadurai’s essay on ‘Hope and Democracy’ (2007). He argues that the politics of hope is strongly connected to concepts like participation, empowerment and social development. These are all important for a nation which is moving steadily from the status of ‘developing’ to that of ‘newly industrialized’. The reality remains however one of stark inequalities on the ground with seemingly insurmountable social problems. This is where the Council seeks to make a difference: by promoting science and technology not just as specialized knowledge created by a select few but as processes which can be bettered Focus B: What is ‘grassroots innovation’?

In a 2011 presentation, Ramasami, then Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India wrote that India’s Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) sector is heavily focused on addressing developmental needs. He also

explains the reason why the rhetoric of innovation centres around the developmental discourse, by referring to the funding model for innovation in developed countries vis-a-vis India. In his own words: “Most developed countries invest about 2% of GDP into R&D with a share of 0.7:1.3 from public and private sector, respectively. In India, investments into R&D are at about 0.95% of GDP with shares of 0.7: 0.25% from public and private sector, respectively. Under such conditions, public and social goods priorities could drive the purpose of

innovations and focus on “Affordable Innovations” for inclusive growth agenda of the country. (Ramasami, 2011)

This distinction is important as it helps us understand the thrust of the Indian government in defining ‘innovation’ along a narrative of inclusive development. Also, it is interesting to note that the public sector is still the major funding body for science and technology, which

necessitates further discussions on how they should be viewed as public goods. Thus, at least for what concerns rhetoric on innovation, in India, the public seems to possess a large degree of agency, as is evident from the following quote, drawn from the 2013 Report to the People of the National Innovation Council (NInC), a think-tank which was specifically established for facilitating the creation of the innovation ecosystem. As we will notice, many aspects of innovation frameworks described by STS scholars are reflected in this objective of the NInC: The need to create a framework or an ecosystem which will focus on processes, which will provide an inclusive platform and will be driven by discourse among stakeholders also defines the basic tenets of the concept of ‘grassroots innovation’, which finds repeated mention in multiple policy documents pertaining to India.

through training and applied to move towards an equitable society. With its innovation hubs and mobile exhibitions, the Council is on a mission to prove that anyone can innovate as the curator of the BITM’s Innovation Hub claims. The notion that anyone can innovate reinvents the very approach towards science learning/popularization and as I argue, it represents the Council’s vision for the future. However, as a final provocation and a point to think about for further discussions, I would like to look at the Council’s narrative of science and technology once more, albeit from a slightly different perspective, especially regarding the issue of innovation and scientific temper. Can everyone truly innovate? I would go back to the Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholar Langdon Winner’s (1980) essay “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” where he paraphrases the American sociologist and urbanist, Lewis Mumford, “...two technologies have existed side by side: one authoritarian, the other democratic, the first system centered, immensely powerful, but inherently unstable, the other man centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable”. Is the Council, along with its constituent museums, promoting one or the other view or both?

In the next section, my attempt will be to shift from theory to practice: to understand the various highly involved stakeholders and the content of science that they are communicating. I will also discuss the notion of science communication as a public service as it emerges from the activity reports and interviews with the NCSM management.

Section II

2.2 Understanding the management, stakeholders and content of NCSM: from