Taking computing off the grid: OLPC XO 3.0 showcased in CES, Las Veg

Source: Arkitect India: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkitectindia/message/12392

Dear Shankar, Satish, Amitabh, Friends,

OK as moderator of IHRO, here's the clarification.

I saw Satish's response to Amitabh Patra's posting, which is downright condemnable.

When I quoted Oxford review, it was meant to draw the attention of readers and members to the importance of equipping our farmers to manage small farms, and most of them [93 million SMFs have 0.6 hectare holding on average]. The main point of the Oxford review is that industrial farming is not geared towards feeding people, it is about wealth creation; feeding people is different from wealth creation. Perhaps Satish missed the point and needlessly pounced on Amitabh.

Now Satish: It is true that information technology [NOT COMPUTERS OR LAP TOPS, OR LAP DOGS] will disseminate the information required by our farmers. IT and laptops can facilitate information flow but it is beyond the means of our SMFs who barely eat one meal a day.....BUT THEY FEED THREE TO FOUR MEALS EVERY DAY TO US EDUCATED FOLKS. Especially to the urban Indians. I am saying this with full understanding of the role of science in society, especially its role in empowering the poor. When science is prostituted, made to do a bare-all belly dance, don't even talk about empowring and liberating role of science.

AND THE HANDS THAT FEED US ARE SYSTEMATICALLY BEING HACKED. The death by suicide of farmers and the widespread malnutrition of infants, children, adolescent boys and girls and women, is violative of the following national laws, and these are Constitutionally Guranteed. Below are the relevant sections, Supreme Court's interpretation and India's international obligations in law. READ THESE RULES VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE THERE IS DEEPER MEANING TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY FRAMED BY OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.

Article 47 of the Constitution states that it is the “Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties…..” Article 39(a) says “that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood;” Article 39(e) says “that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength and 39(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

Provisions of Articles 47 and 39 are part of the Directive Principles of the State Policy. However, if the provisions are interpreted in the light of Article 21 that guarantees a fundamental right to life and personal liberty, the provisions of 39 and 47 become enforceable fundamental rights by virtue of the constitutional remedy provided under Article 32. That is the legal position taken by the Supreme Court in dealing with a PIL in the matter of food and nutrition security, given the alarming number of malnourished people and many dying of hunger despite PDS, MDM, ICDS, SGRY and other programs. Therefore, any attempt to redefine priority groups would be violation of a major Constitutional protection unless there is a sound socio-economic justification.

International obligations: Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1949) recognizes the right of everyone to adequate food; India is a signatory. At the World Food Summit in 1996 the Government of India affirmed “the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger” and the Government acknowledged that “it is necessary to consolidate, strengthen and expand the present system of entitlements.

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and the General Comment 12 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights further elaborate the responsibilities of all State Parties to recognize the right of everyone to be free from hunger. Further responsibilities in this regard, particularly with reference to children and women, derive from the Convention of the Rights of the Child (Articles 27.1 and 27.3) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Article 12).

MDGs:  The relevant goals are 1, 4, 4a, and 7a-d to be achieved by 2015. Goal 1 deals with reducing extreme poverty and hunger, Goal 4 seeks to reduce child mortality, and 7a to 7d deal with ensuring environmental sustainability including reversing the decline in ecological services, prevent biodiversity loss, improve access to safe drinking water and sanitation and improve the QoL of slum dwellers. 

On all counts the situation is bad and the trends show abysmal implementation. Recent reports actually accept that hunger has ‘spiked’…even in the USA where 11% of poor households in the US had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of money and other resources.

Our researches show that district and block level administration and the majority of the ULBs don’t even know about MDGs. 

Please note that ONE-LAPTOP-PER-CHILD has not been discussed in the UN General Assembly, nor in the Indian Parliament, nor in the Supreme Court.

But what has been discussed, debated and resolved to eliminate is the human rights violations taking place right here in India and that is a crime we see on a daily basis. It is the right of every member to inform the forum which rights' violations took place.

Kind regards

Arun Shrivastava