Challenging and rewarding innovators worldwide: A forgotten Gandhian legacy
Time and again when I have the opportunity to talk to budding managers, leaders and senior policy makers of our society, I remind them of a guilt my generation suffers from. Many of us knew the problems disadvantaged people in our society faced but we learned to live with them, rather than resolve them. What did Gandhi do in one such case. While it is fashionable to use the jargon of crowdsourcing or mass-sourcing or open innovation model today, but seldom do we realize that had we followed the advice of Gandhi ji first articulated in 1929, we would not have the tragedy of living with so many technical and social problems faced by common people every day. Honey Bee Network tried to trigger the process of learning from common people more than quarter century ago and the effort continues. But we could not offer such awards as Gandhiji then offered. Let me quote what did he do and how: it is a lesson is framing the problem, defining the criteria of selection and ensuing that so that solution can be made open source by acquiring IPR rights.
Mahatma Gandhi\’s Announcement of Machine Design Contest, july 24, 1929
Akhila Bharatiya Charkhaa Sangh Workers\’ Samiti has decided to organise this Contest for inventors and engineers all over the world that if they could come up with a Charkha or a Samyukta Yantra which – for making the thread and cloth , that satisfies the following criterion – shall be awarded a Prize money of 1 Lakh Rupees or 7700 pounds.
The Criterion: (1). Charkha must be light-weighted, easy to move, and it should be in such a way so as to be operated using either hand or one\’s leg – in a natural way in the rural cottages of India; (2)Charkha must be in such a way that a lady shall be able to work with it for 8 hours at a stretch without great effort put in; (3) Either Charkhas must have a build to accommodate the use of a puni (used to make handspun cloth)or along with the charkha there must be a way to handspun cloth; (4) On working with the charkha for 8 hours at a continuous stretch – it should result in 12 to 20 numbers of 16000 feet yarn; (5) The machine should be so designed such that it costs no more than Rs. 150 in producing it in India only;(6) The machine should be strong and well-made and with time-to-time servicing it should be capable of running for at least 20 years without any stopping. Servicing of the machine should not cost much and every year not more than 5% of the cost of the machine that year shall be needed for servicing; (7) All those taking part in this contest, may – with their own input costs and expenses send their machines to Sabarmati Ashram before or not later than 30th October, 1930. In case the machines satisfy the criterion mentioned – then the inventor/designer can patent it on his name to protect their rights on them. But, if they wish to become eligible to win the prize money of the contest, then the designer shall have to transfer the rights of the patent to Indian Charkha Sangh Council. (8) The Judges for the Contest shall be Khadi Pratishtan\’s Sri Satish Chandra Das Gupta, Bardoli Swarajya Ashram\’s Technical Director Sri Lakshmidas Purushottam and Tiruchengonduu Gandhi Ashram\’s Director Sri Chakravarthy Rajagopalachari. In case there is no consensus amongst the judges on the winner – Gandhiji\’s decision shall be the final one.
Why has not this nation of billion people and huge wealth set up prizes of even Rs one crore to develop manual paddy transplanting machine, semi-automatic device for tea plucking, low cost processing machines for forest produce ( or even one percent of it is not processed in situ today), or replacement of manual scavenging and one can go on.
State, market and civil society will have to explain some day the persistence of civilizational inertia and make millions suffer every day, despite all the growth statistics and profligacy in public expenditure. Technology Acquisition Fund and Technology Commons are two recent small initiatives of HBN in making private IPRs a means of creating public good. But is that enough? Certainly Not……
Anil K Gupta
