Dissent, disagreement and diversity are agenda for NIC

It was very gratifying that the first formal meeting of (National Innovation Council) NIC held recently in Planning Commission, saw diverse opinions on how to carry forward the agenda of inclusive innovation model for the country.

While there was no consensus on how NIC will prioritise the contending ideas to take forward the agenda, it was clear that promotion of innovation will have to be pursued through a very diverse approach.

If there was a consensus it was on the need to promote dissent, disagreements and diversity while pursuing various goals. The issue of announcing challenge awards for solving India's century old problems did not evoke a strong sentiment but a reality show on television did. So much about inclusive agenda! It might not have occurred to the mandarins that most of the Naxalite affected villages do not have electricity and so the issue of their participation in reality shows does not arise. 

If radio had been chosen as a means of mobilising the minds, may be the social inclusion could have been achieved. But radio is perhaps not as glamorous for the change agents. Another idea debated was a fund of funds to promote innovations. It was hoped that the fund with large scale participation from private sector will help lower barriers for start ups to access risk capital. It was ignored that not all sectors suffer equal disadvantage in accessing risk capital.

The history of venture capitals, which have seldom invested in ideas that are yet to prove their worth in market was ignored. There is a need to focus on sectors like ayush ( Indian system of medicine like ayurvedic drugs) which can only flourish when tribals become active drivers of ethical and fair supply chains. 

But this is not on the agenda of NIC yet. If in the process the extremists elements in society deepen their roots, will we be forgiven for this lapse. Similarly, the investment in hundred of thousands of ideas of students available at techpedia.in has not become a priority yet. Nor has investment in creative ideas of various village panchayats become the focus of funds.
No strategy has been developed to link formal and informal science so far.

It is obvious that connect between needs of masses and the system of thinking at higher level will only be forged slowly. Society will have to remain vigilant so that the agenda of inclusive innovation is not hijacked by more privileged sections once again, as has happened with so many other initiatives. Sooner or later, efforts like that of Honey Bee Network will have to be made as points of reference.

We have spent only little over two decades so far in persuading the nation about its innate creative potential. May be it will take another decade or two before text books of every class will have some lessons about grassroots innovations, list if pending problems, and self inspired efforts of local communities to take charge of their destinies. Seeds of impatience have to be sown in every mind.