actually, if you read through the below, it looks more like vinod chowdhury and rovinder raki are making a caricature of shiva, than she is. i enclose your post in its entirety below, so that you may highlight what you find a caricature. there is lot to argue about and perhaps even wrong in shiva's position. but that's probably true in most such debates.
the notion that somehow that scientific/technological "progress" is inevitable, neutral, and therefore has to circumscribe meaningful discussion, is more a reflection of the fear/awe of scientific language and technological progress. the enhrenreich link i forwarded earlier, which demonstrates the virulence of the response towards pomo philosophers, illustrates this point. so does the idea of measuring results in terms of colour TVs.
every "hard-nosed" realist, at least since russell (not a man in awe of science and no stranger to its weaknesses) has blithely held as axiomatic the idea that we are better off than the caveman, and that is due to science (perhaps lewontin and a couple of others are exceptions). a source of the western left's recent criticism of other modes of life (primitivism, etc) seems a sort of embarassed backlash against the [perhaps other segements of the] left's own romantic interpretation of such modes... i am sure larry summers (of harvard) calls himself a leftie (or liberal) and considers his pronouncements on the skills of women as a sort of reality check on the left's placing its romantic 'ought' ahead of the scientific 'is'. dawkins, a self-proclaimed leftist, says as much, when he casts us as in control of our selfish genes.
as alex cockburn wrote (thus far uncontradicted, despite heated debate on this list): a) there was significant farmer suicide and rural dissatisfaction in andhra pradesh. b) the chief minister of the state govt made various changes that favoured urban tech boom over the rural population, c) the population voted out the party in power.
(b) is a bit arguable. whether (a) and (b) are the reasons for (c) is also arguable. but there is reason to believe they are both true. for the sake of this debate, let us assume they are. the question then arises: was the population [scientifically/economically] ignorant or were they rejecting a particular form of organization?
while it is sound to argue that certain methods/systems (neoliberal capitalism, state capitalism, etc) not be excluded from the alternatives, due to the left's ideological commitments (to communism, marxism, ...) -- since limiting the options of a suffering population, in deference to incomplete theories, is cruel -- it is also required that we address other alternatives with more than just dismissal (as "delusional").
this is not talk in the abstract. the march of technological progress is almost always achieved at the cost of destruction/marginalization of the holdouts and a "re-education" of the people.
--ravi
> Prof. Vinod Chowdhury, reader in economics at St. Stephen's College: It
> strikes me as very extraordinary that Vandanaji should have such a one
> sided approach. And I'm saying that with due respect to the sheer
> vivacity of her presentation. Vandanaji seems to believe that there are
> two clearly antithetical paradigms. One is a paradigm that essentially
> is based on decentralisation, democratisation - all the good things in
> life - - women are cared for, poor people are cared for - this, that and
> the other. And other is terribly evil. Everything's wrong with it. Now
> surely life cannot be like that Vandanaji may I plead with you to please
> consider third paradigm, where we take bits and pieces from here and
> there and get an eclectic, practical approach, and I support Boopinder
> Singh Hooda - the President of the Haryama Congress who asked you - and
> you didn't answer that - what is the alternative at a time when no
> country can opt out of the WTO - it's not a piece of paper madam - it is
> a commitment that countries have to make or they will be paraiah
> countries and we cannot afford to be a paraiah country - please react?
>
> Vandana Shiva: I did react to him. And I said rewriting those rules -
> rewriting those rules that are one sided. In fact it's the WTO rules
> that are totally one sided because they really only protect the interest
> of one sector of the global community which is the global corporations,
> not in the local industry, not even local retail business, not small
> farmers anywhere, not in the north and not in the south. And those rules
> can be rewritten. That is the point I'm trying to make. Do not treat WTO
> rules in the Uruguay Round Treaty as the final word on how trade should
> be carried out. Those rules are being reviewed. What we have called for
> in Seattle is a more democratic input in what sustainable and just rules
> would look like for agriculture on intellectual property rights, in the
> area of services, in the area of investments, the four new areas which
> were brought in. Before that - no-one had problems with the GATT. The
> old GATT was about real trade in real products beyond national
> boundaries. The new GATT with the Uruguay round - is about invading in
> every space of our everyday lives ... and if you are a woman you do have
> a somewhat different point of view. That's why we talk of gender. If you
> are poor, you will have a different point of view from the rich. To have
> different points of view because of differences in location in society
> is not a problem. It is opportunistic though to take a little element of
> the perspective of the rich , a little element of the perspective of the
> poor and put it into a little jigsaw of opportunistic statements.
> Societies live by coherent principles, organisational systems, values
> and world views. And what we are calling for is to balance out that one
> sided idea that we live by commerce alone.
>
> Rovinder Raki, student: You seem to eulogise the fairness and efficiency
> of traditional agricultures, societies and production patterns. But the
> reality is that the farmers were exploited in these societies by
> moneylenders and feudal lords. With the market reaching these societies
> that exploitative social system certainly declines. Now what I have to
> ask you is what restrains you from appreciating this sanitising effect
> of the market?
>
> Vandana Shiva: Well the sanitising affect of the market does end up
> treating people like germs. Wipe them out. And it is that view of
> dispensability, the disappearances of the small that I was trying to
> draw attention to in my lecture. There has always been exploitation, and
> I agree with Mr Hooda, but no exploitation before this period of
> current, economic globalisation, ever organised itself in ways that it
> could totally dispense with the exploited. Even the slave system needed
> the slave. Even the worst of British rule which created the Bengal
> famine, and led to the "Faybehaga" movement to rise against the
> exploitation, it needed to keep the peasants alive. For the first time
> we have a system where no-one needs the peasants, unless we realise as
> societies we need them, that we've reached a period where people are
> actually talking in India, in other countries that you can get rid of
> small producers. It's assumed that everything, real growth, real
> prosperity is going to come out of cyber space, but as you can see, you
> can have the best of IT technologies floating above the carcasses of
> people dying in Rajisthan and Gujerat right now -- and it will not help
> them out. We have to pay attention to the ecological base of our
> survival and the needs of all. I personally am committed to feeling and
> believing that the smallest of species and the smallest of people have
> as much a right to live on this planet with dignity as the most powerful
> corporation and the most powerful individual.