People's Democracy

        State And Corporate Sector In Education And Culture

  Nalini Taneja

THE late E H Carr, the famous historian of the Bolshevik revolution and the erstwhile USSR, and one who, despite not being a leftist or Marxist, faithfully represented his archival material and in the process defended the revolutionary regime and what it stood for, would have been shocked at the way some of our intelligentsia is unilaterally arguing for ‘freedom’ from the State. In a celebrated series of lectures he had described two traditions of democracy that emerged in Europe from the struggle against feudalism. He spelled out clearly the two notions of democracy that henceforth characterised world politics: the liberal notion of democracy which emphasised the withdrawal of the State from all spheres of individual and social life and was complementary to the drive towards laissez-faire in economics, and was classically represented by England; and the French tradition as it emerged during the great 1789 French Revolution where the popular movements consolidated their control over State to ensure people friendly policies. He termed these as negative and positive notions of democracy.

In our era, these can be experienced as free play of market forces vs. popular welfare through State intervention, although the matter is not that simplistic as the State in the globalisation era has a completely pro active stance in favour of the ruling classes.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE STATE

But while an interventionist State does not necessarily imply that popular welfare will ensue, on the other hand the withdrawal of the State does mean that popular welfare will be given the go by and the corporate sector will directly ensure ruling class interest. In other words, while a government elected by the people can still be held accountable, the corporate sector cannot. Withdrawal of the State in our era can, therefore, only mean withdrawal of benefits to the majority of our population.

The intelligentsia of this country, however, seems to think that we have had enough of the State, and that the State must not only disinvest from PSUs but from all sphere of life. Phrases like “official secularism”, bureaucratic control, officialdom rule, are back in circulation, and the new government is being asked to keep its hands off on matters of education and culture, in favour of boards and bodies of professional managers.

Such demands not only play into the hands of liberalisers and votaries of the World Bank, they also give an advantage to the communalists, particularly the Sangh Parivar. There has been a perfect partnership between the liberalising and the communal forces in their forging of a right wing economic and political agenda for the nation, which will continue if the new government just stands by and does not actively implement the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) programme. The demand therefore ought to be for a more pro active stance in doing what needs to be done rather than placing hope in an abstract civil society or “boards” of professionals (a term borrowed from business enterprises), which can only mean the taking over of education and culture by the corporate sector, and eventually a premium on consumerism and their becoming a business.

CORPORATISATION AND PRIVATISATION

The experience with the media should be enough to prove this little point. We have a multiplicity of channels, all offering the same fare, the same propensity to promote the interest of the ruling classes and ignore the voices of the people, and a competition for who shows the maximum programmes on religion. The corporatisation of media has not meant its democratisation, and the privatisation of education and cultural bodies will also have the same result. Corporatisation and privatisation are the opposite of democratisation. Therefore, there is a need to make demands on the State, not to ask it to withdraw.

There is also the added question, if it is not the new government that is to undo what the previous government has done, who is to do it? The present composition of most bodies and committees in institutions related to education and culture are such that if left unattended can only serve the interest of the Sangh Parivar. Changes in National Curriculum and bills ensuring a real guarantee of right to free and universal and compulsory education can only come with co-operation of the government. Moreover, it is an unfounded presumption that some ‘free’ bodies, bereft of ideologies, with a commitment to democracy will get formed should the State withdraw.

This entire campaign for the withdrawal of the State at this juncture, therefore, amounts to rooting for the corporate sector, to following World Bank prescriptions, and to handing over all institutions funded by public to private ends-notably right wing agendas. In education the areas left over beyond the government school system hardly served secular-democratic interests. Most schools outside the framework of the government system have always been dominated by the teaching of a communal version of history, and the RSS has emerged as the largest private player in school education, aided above all by the lack of will by the government to make the government aided school system work well. It is not too much of “official secularism”, but too little of it, that is responsible for where we are today.

EROSION OF SOCIAL CONTROL

It cannot be emphasised enough that social control, which is necessary in any democratic set up, is eroded as much through privatisation as through bureaucratic control over educational processes. The scheme of autonomous colleges, accreditation and the University Model Act are all devices for further eroding social control and for strengthening the private business players of all kinds --- communalism if it sells and commerce courses if they sell. All these players want from the government is that it ensures that education becomes a viable and lucrative business through decapacitating student and teacher unions, hounding out teacher and student activists and radical scholars, and depoliticisation of campuses as a whole. 

What the ‘independent’ intelligentsia is asking for also amounts to erosion of all social control. One columnist even went so far as to suggest that “as a solution, the HRD ministry should be shut down, its funds diverted to boards consisting of representatives of each discipline which are managed by a professional cadre of managers.” There are demands for professional managers to ‘manage’ education and culture, and for the government to disinvest from textbooks, and of course a large body of the intelligentsia has favoured autonomous colleges and in general the privatisation of education.

We need to look closely at the relationship between the State (governments), market and the rightward shift in the content of education in the context of globalisation. The growth of the market forces in education can only contribute to further constraints on access to education and culture and a further illiberalisation of its content.

The way out today is not withdrawal of the State, but empowering of all the statutory bodies, including government created bodies, with elected representation from stake holders --- i.e., teachers, students, karamcharis and parents with regard to the educational system, and the practitioners of arts, literature and music, including popular cultural expression, in the cultural bodies. The government needs to be held accountable and not let off. It needs to be pressurised into creating institutional guarantees and structures that will safeguard the secular content of education as well as the commitment towards universal and equal school education, and not into handing over public institutions and public funds into hands of managerial boards created through a ‘free market’ principle.