| More
Information |
|
|
| Name |
Anil K Gupta |
|
|
| Category |
EDITORIAL |
|
|
| Title |
Invisible women, visible wisdom |
|
|
| Details |
Failures can lead to small breakthroughs when one starts listening to the unheard voices within. I remember, during the Shodhyatra in Alwar, Rajasthan, women were not present in the night meetings. We started making a presentation about the innovation gathered from other regions and the women continued to be absent. We made a polite request to the men present to call the women so that they could join us but excuses continued. After a while, we stopped the presentation.
By now, the audience was enjoying nice videos and photographs of innovations. They insisted that we should resume and the women would come eventually.
However, we also insisted that we would wait till they came and only then we would resume the presentation. Not surprisingly, many women soon came to see the presentation. We were embarrassed. Why did it take so long for us to practice this simple satyagrah, the insistence on a fair rule?
Only a few women innovators or traditional knowledge holders have been recognised so far in various award functions. Among children participants in the IGNITE annual competition, the situation has been slightly better. At least, the future seems to hold more promise. Yet, can we afford to continue ignoring the creative voices of women from all sections of the society?
I am not sure that further wait for enhancing the share of women in the category of outstanding achievers will be justified any more. We had noticed this flaw thirteen years ago in 2000,
“Honey Bee Network has realised that one of the reasons why we have been able to discover lesser number of innovations by/for women is that they are always culturally coerced to adapt rather than transcend the technological constraints. Women are no less creative than men. It is just that their access to the tools for fabricating new devices has also been impaired. The formal institutions have not bothered. Grassroots innovators do not share this attitude and have innovated several contraptions to bring solace, both physical and economic, to them.”
However, our tactics or strategies in this regard have not been quick enough. Despite millions being spent on women welfare and development, women knowledge and creativity still remains subdued if not completely ignored. If other women groups or other organisations have ignored the knowledge of women, then it does not give us any solace. We need to make a difference.
Let me mention some of the steps that we plan to take in the times to come to overcome this asymmetry: a) In the summer scouting period, we will now focus only on the knowledge and creativity of women and farm workers, the two groups whose share in the knowledge system and awards has remained very low. We will not ignore the knowledge of others but we will not actively seek that; b) the idea competitions which have helped us unearth many creative girl children, will be organised among women as well to uncover their hidden talent. The feasibility we have asserted should not become the enemy of desirability. Once ideas emerge, ways to implement them will also emerge; c) unique traditional knowledge and other ideas of women will be taken up for value addition and social diffusion on priority so that better examples can be created about the innate worth of these ideas. Once we start getting results based on their knowledge, hopefully other women who may have similar ideas may come forward to share their ideas too. For instance, an improved variety of carrot developed by Santosh Pachar in Rajasthan, or paddy selections by Ariyammal and Pushpam, Tamil Nadu, herbal medication for poultry diseases by Oinsam, Yumnam and another representative of the Nambol community, Manipur, have been recognised in this year’s Seventh Biennial Grassroots Innovation Award function. The motivation for other similar creative women might increase, provided they come to know of them. This time, seven girl students are also being recognised at the Award Function for their ideas. As these technologies or ideas mature, the creative voices of women might be heard better; d) there is also a need to benchmark the technological constraints faced by women. Assistance should be given to women if they have ideas about addressing these constraints. Last year we announced three challenges for making better wood stoves, tea plucking device and manual paddy transplanting devices. Although these problems mostly affect women, there were few entries from them. It is nobody’s argument that problems faced by women should not be addressed by men. Yet, it is a matter of concern if women do not have an access to the problem-solving process for issues affecting them.
We hope that readers will send more concrete ideas to galvanise and harness women’s wisdom in, not just child care and food processing but also, in all other areas of human survival. We have to work towards a day when the share of women awardees would be equal to that of men, if not more.
|
|
|
| Volume No. |
Honey Bee 23(4) & 24(1) 3, 2013 |
