(a) Sociologists argue for democratization of science and technology for inclusive development. Comment. (20 marks) (b) Are…

The assertion that science and technology must be democratized for inclusive development is broadly correct, but it is not a neutral technical fix; it is a political question about who defines problems, controls resources and captures benefits.

Democratization of science and technology STS critiques of technocratic elitism, sharpened by thinkers such as Feyerabend and Ravetz, show that when knowledge and innovation are concentrated in expert, corporate or state laboratories, development can become extractive, top-down and insensitive to local livelihoods. Democratization therefore means participatory technology assessment, inclusive innovation models, and community control over the design and use of technology. Indian examples show this is possible: Honey Bee Network’s farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange and SRISTI’s support for grassroots inventions demonstrate that technology can be adapted to smallholders, women and marginal communities rather than imposed on them. Yet the claim has limits. Democratization can be hollowed out by regulatory capture, where standards, patents and subsidies serve large firms; and by the digital divide, which reproduces exclusion. NSS 78th round data on device ownership by gender and caste show that access to phones and internet remains uneven, so “smart” development can widen gaps if not paired with public provisioning, digital literacy and stronger regulation.

Traditional institutions as agents of change The question whether traditional institutions are weakening is best answered as conversion rather than simple disappearance. On one hand, the weakening thesis has empirical support: the decline of jajmani systems, migration, nuclearization and market integration have reduced the everyday authority of village kinship and caste arrangements. On the other hand, continuity is visible in adaptive forms. Caste panchayats, including khap panchayats, have not vanished; some have reformed or been pressured to accommodate inter-caste marriage, while others still police it, showing that tradition can be both conservative and renegotiated. Religious institutions also mobilize for education and welfare: madrasa modernization debates and gurukul revival show that faith-based institutions can become agents of social change when they engage with modern schooling, health and civic norms. Srinivas’s trajectory from sanskritization to competitive sanskritization helps here: what changes is not merely the surface but the competitive logic of status, where lower castes adopt upper-caste practices to contest hierarchy. Thus traditional institutions are weakened as closed hierarchies but often strengthened as contested arenas of social change.

Patriarchy and social development Patriarchy is not a background custom; it shapes development itself. Boserup showed that gendered agricultural intensification can make women’s labour indispensable, yet development statistics often render that labour invisible. Feminist critiques of GDP-centric growth show that if development ignores care work, unpaid labour and women’s agency, growth may coexist with deprivation. Molyneux and Moser’s distinction between practical and strategic needs, taken up in Kabeer’s work on empowerment, agency, resources and achievements, clarifies this: practical needs address immediate burdens, while strategic needs challenge power relations. Development is therefore not merely income growth but the expansion of women’s capacity to claim rights and reshape institutions. Indian evidence is mixed: despite growth, earlier labour-force data recorded a long-term fall in female labour force participation; later PLFS rounds show a rise, but participation remains low and uneven. NFHS-5 shows persistence of son preference, and women’s SHGs function as counter-hegemonic spaces where savings, voice and collective bargaining challenge patriarchal control.

In conclusion, inclusive development requires democratizing technology, reimagining traditional institutions as sites of reform, and dismantling patriarchal structures that convert growth into exclusion. Technology without participation, tradition without accountability, and growth without gender justice will remain incomplete.