New Education Policy and Teachers' Struggles

NEW EDUCATION POLICY: ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS’ STRUGGLES

Pranjali Bandhu

The country-wide strike on college and university teachers in August-September 1987 was unprecedented in its duration, the numbers (2.3 lakhs) involved and the militancy and initiative exhibited. However in the course of the strike, and even now, certain core proposals of the New Education Policy (NEP) and their implications for the position of teachers and their struggles have failed to come to the forefront and be extensively discussed.

The All-India Federation of University and College Teachers Organisations (AIFUCTO) leading the strike chose to confine itself to raising some limited demands. It asked for the re-introduction of the three-tier structure (of Lecturer, Reader and Professor) against the proposed seven-tier grading scheme; for time-bound promotion; simultaneous implementation of the new pay scales all over the country and 100% central assistance to States to implement the new pay scales from January 1, 1986.

The charter of demands suffered from serious lacunae. (This was not always so in the case of demands taken up by (regional)-national teachers’ organisations). An entire series of bureaucratic and authoritarian measures directed against teachers, such as the Code of Conduct proposed by the Mehrotra Committee, measures for increased centralisation of the education system, and other repressive measures aimed at greater control over teachers, which should have constituted the focus of attack in the teachers’ strike, were simply not taken up by AIFUCTO. The Code of Conduct aims at “disciplining” teachers in a more systematic manner than hitherto by incorporating in the service rules of the universities minor and major penalties for minor and major “offences.”

Education is a concurrent subject, but the Central government is planning to become the decisive authority in relation to the State governments. The establishment of an All-India Education Service is meant to achieve centralisation and unification in the contents and management of the education system. An entire system of appraisal of teacher ‘performance’ is on the anvil to control what they teach and to keep them at the beck and call of the authorities. The setting up of Academic Staff Colleges in universities, for example, will enable a greater control over content of syllabi and teacher “performance.”

The fact that these and many other bureaucratic and repressive measures against teachers were not taken up as the focal point of attack in the all-India teachers’ strike and their background exposed shows that the NEP is not grasped in its essential ramifications. For this, tracing the development of the Education system in a historical perspective is necessary.

The Colonial Character of Indian Education

The education system in India has a more or less unbroken tradition from colonial times. The British colonialists dismantled indigenous modes of education existing here and imposed a Westernised education system with the purpose of subjugating the peoples of this sub-continent into the imperialist/colonial economic and political structures.

This education had as one major aim the creation of cheaply paid but loyal cadre of clerks and babus to man the lower levels of the imperial-colonial state machinery. It also had the aim of developing an indigenous pro-British liberal intellectual elite (like Ram Mohun Roy and others), which, in spite of some contradictions with the imperial rulers, on the whole welcomed and lent intellectual support to the continuation of the “enlightened” British Raj. The key purpose of this education was to create ideological-cultural dependency, to create the ‘colonial mentality’ in the subjugated peoples.

By suppressing indigenous languages and imposing a foreign language as medium of instruction, by shaping curricula and textbooks so that they were far-removed from the cultural heritages and the socio-economic reality of the peoples, it aimed at robbing them of their self-respect and their sense of identity. The colonial masters were interested in domination and control of the subjugated peoples and therefore their education blocked the development of a spirit of free, independent and scientific enquiry necessary for peoples to control their lives and resources in their own interest. It induced respect and awe for the English language and culture, their slavish imitation and contempt, disdain and ignorance of the own culture and history, as well as that of other great non-Western civilisations—the Chinese, the Arabic and African. Their achievements in various fields of science, medicine, agriculture, the arts and architecture were neither acknowledged nor taught. Instead, education under colonialism compromised with all kinds of obscurantist, revivalist and superstitious ways of thinking corresponding to the alliance of the British bourgeoisie with feudal elements on the political and economic levels. Education was open mainly to the upper caste caste/class males and did its best to further buttress undemocratic thinking in relation to the ‘lower’ castes, women as well as minority religious groups and tribal peoples.

It cannot be disputed that in many respects the education system of today has an almost unbroken continuity with that under direct colonial rule. Any changes and modifications in it have been ones to adapt it to the changing needs of an even more intensified and vicious imperialist exploitation by neo-colonial methods.

Neo-colonialism in Education

Old-style imperialism and colonialism by direct political and military rule over territories had to give way because of increasing opposition to it, exemplified by the Chinese revolution and other national liberation struggles. Faced by escalating anti-imperialist struggles at the end of World War II, the imperialists, led by US imperialism which had then emerged as the strongest imperialist power, realized the necessity and put into practice a restructuring of the methods and forms of imperialist exploitation making them at once more subtle and complicated. As in other colonial countries, in India, too, in 1947 political power was handed over to an indigenous big bourgeois class linked in a dependent way in its origin and for its further survival and growth with imperialist capital abroad, but also with medieval feudal elements at home. Rule by indigenous classes successfully camouflaged and rendered largely invisible the continuing and expanding economic, political and cultural presence and influence of imperialism, and later of social-imperialism, too, in the ex-colonies by creating the illusion of ‘independence.’

Under the garb of ‘modernisation’ and ‘development’, ‘self-reliant’ and ‘independent’ growth, imperialist finance, industrial capital and technology have continued to pour in and have penetrated into key sectors of industry, agriculture and service sectors. It was and is argued that in order to generate self-sustaining growth an initial dependence on the technology and capital of the so-called more ‘advanced’ countries is necessary. Lying terminology like ‘aid,’ ‘co-operation’ and ‘interdependence’ is used to mask the fact that the ruling big bourgeoisie in these countries is dependent on and dominated by the imperialist bourgeoisie.

In the neo-colonial phase after World War-II when the colonial state machineries were handed over to indigenous elites, when many big imperialist corporations transferred some of their production units to cheap-labour neo-colonial countries, when ‘modernisation’ and ‘industrialisation’ were taking place, when many new financial and ‘developmental’ institutes were set up – all this required technicians, skilled but docile labour, service personnel as well as a managerial and administrative class at standards comparable to those in imperialist countries. To serve this kind of ‘developmental’ model based on imperialist theories of ‘development economics’ an expansion and corresponding ‘reformation’ of the education system also became necessary.

Many education Commissions were set up to formulate policy guidelines and in these imperialist experts played a key role. In the first of these Commissions US experts and the World Bank advocated an education system which was oriented less towards traditional disciplines, such as law and the humanities, and stressed a more science oriented curriculum, greater technical training, the development of technical skills in the social sciences and business administration.

Granting ‘aid’ to various educations institutions is one major method of influencing the educational system. Most of the major institutes at higher levels have been set up with imperialist aid: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Indian Institute of Management, National Institute of Design, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Indian Institute of Law, Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations, Indian Council of World Affairs, the Indian Institutes of Technology, some major agricultural universities such as the Punjab Agricultural University are some of them. Key policy making central educational bodies like the UGC and NCERT were set up with the help of and continue to be guided by imperialist expertise. Through interlinkages with centres of research and education in imperialist countries, grants for specific research projects, book grants, cheap and subsidized ‘Indian’ editions of foreign text books both from the US as well as the Soviet bloc, scholarships and ‘exchange’ of academic personnel, these institutes as well as others have been used to serve the imperialist growth model of capital and technology import and export of agricultural and other raw materials and industrial goods produced with imperialist aid here. They have helped the increased penetration of monopoly capital of giant imperialist corporations and Russian imperialists. They have helped them retain their technological superiority and monopoly with the active aid and collaboration of our government, which has hindered self-reliant growth at every step.

The agricultural universities have helped agriculture to slowly come under imperialist grip. The introduction of capitalist agricultural practices in many parts of the country, the so-called ‘green revolution,’ was carried out with the help of agricultural universities such as the Punjab Agriculture University and others. This has provided huge markets for the modern agricultural products and machinery of US and other imperialist agribusinesses, but it certainly has not been able to ensure people of an adequate and nutritious diet. Traditional methods of planting, fertilizing, harvesting and caring for the earth, including seed varieties, have been replaced by methods and hybrids which are highly energy and water consumptive, leading to impoverishment and exhaustion of the soil. Beyond this, rice strains developed through centuries of experimenting have been taken away to the International Rice Research Institute at Manila (a US imperialist outfit) and used for producing hybrid varieties which are less energy and water consumptive and more nutritious. These have been reserved for US agriculture, whereas lower quality hybrid varieties have been selected for use in dependent countries like India.

In the field of Medicine, medical colleges and research institutions have helped in expanding the market for ever newer medical equipment and synthetic drugs produced by big imperialist corporations; many of these drugs are quite deadly and prohibited in the home countries. The health care system sustained by them is curative, hospital based and mainly for the urban elite; it is not for the masses geared towards preventive health care and well-being. Research on tropical diseases and the further development of Ayurveda and other herbal-based indigenous medicine systems have not received the attention they deserve. Institutions like the IITs have curricula geared more towards imperialist and not indigenous needs and end up supplying cheap engineers and other technical personnel to imperialist countries which are saved the expense of training them on home ground, where such expenses are much higher than in dependent countries. Vocational and technical education, which are sought to be further expanded under the NEP, impart technical skills and not technological knowledge. They have the aim of creating personnel which will only be able to assemble, operate, repair and maintain various imported machinery. As this is protected by patent rights, they do not have the chance to develop the ability to innovate, develop or adapt a particular technology according to indigenous conditions and needs.

In the area of the social sciences imperialist influence and ideology are equally manifest. A lot of books and curricula in this field are imported and pertain in their content to the reality and norms of imperialist countries. They are necessarily permeated with white supremacist and other reactionary ideologies. They are essentially bourgeois/imperialist in their methodology (positivist, empiricist) and their philosophical base (pragmatist, idealist). The function of much social science research funded by imperialist governments and private agencies is to manufacture ideologies and techniques of ‘social control’ for the pacification and manipulation of peoples within their countries and abroad. In the name of collaborative research data collected by Indian collaborators is sent abroad for computerised data processing. In the process it becomes part of enormous data banks on this country and is later used by imperialist governments to formulate policy guidelines on various social movements and political events, which are then put forward as ‘recommendations’ to the Indian government. Indian social scientists largely base their research on concepts and methodologies borrowed from imperialist countries with their in-built biases. For many working in various government-funded research institutes their writings are also meant to inform government bureaucrats about people’s movements and put forward strategies on how to counter them. Institutions, like the Jawaharlal Nehru University, set up with the help of social-imperialist aid and expertise, are not much different and fit into this general framework of imperialist production relations.

The colonial heritage in education continues and the tendency is towards greater submergence of self-reliance, self-confidence, dignity, national identity and pride. This is seen most crassly in the fact that national languages in India continue to remain underdeveloped. The colonial language, English, continues to be used as a major medium of instruction in schools and almost monopolises in higher education. Since the aim of such an education continues to be that of fitting people into a situation of cultural and economic dependency on imperialism, the method of teaching and learning is largely oriented towards cramming from ‘standard’ textbooks and guides which are programmed toward set patterns of questions in ‘examinations.’ It fosters values which are geared towards bourgeois individualism, careerism, responsiveness to economic incentives, parasitism, mediocrity and fear of losing the few crumbs thrown. Servility, orientation towards borrowing concepts in the arts and sciences, lack of independent innovation are the results. Retrograde ideologies of individual responsibility for success and failure are inculcated, rather than realisation of the fact that injustices and inequalities are in-built in the system.

Dependency is induced in other ways too: when compared to imperialist countries the academic infrastructure in countries like ours is very poor. Libraries are inadequately stocked, funds available for research are scarce, laboratories are poorly equipped, working conditions are often not conducive to research. The amount spent on Research and Development in imperialist countries is about 45 times that spent in a country like India. There is no atmosphere and culture of serious research and study. “Education” means degrees as a passport to climb up the socio-economic ladder. “Knowledge”, its production and distribution, is monopolised by the imperialist metropholes. As in the economic sphere, in this sphere too, there is an unfavourable balance of trade for India; it imports more knowledge products than it exports. It depends on the imperialist metropoles for knowledge in most scientific and technological fields, applied research findings and for knowledge about the own country in all fields. Many Indian intellectuals, who by their whole background are oriented towards the West and are alienated from their own peoples and their needs, also contribute to the imperialist knowledge factories, work in their universities and research institutes and write for their journals. Much of this knowledge is gained at the cost of the poor peoples of dependent countries: new drugs, birth control methods, new methods of warfare etc. are tested out on them. Indeed, monopolisation and control over knowledge production and distribution is a key element for imperialist control over and exploitation of the human and material resources of dependent countries.

An education system serving the exploitative needs of imperialist super profit making cannot be universal, equal and general in character, but only elitist and top-heavy. As a result of NEP policies the privileged upper and some middle castes/classes will continue to have access to the ‘best’ schools, the Navodaya Vidyalayas, and hence to higher education. The deprived poor majority, religious minorities like the Muslims, tribal peoples, the lower castes and women will continue to suffer from unequal chances and deprivation in the present set-up. They are going to be pushed into non-formal education or none at all because of increasing impoverishment.

The 80s saw further opening up of the economy for imperialist penetration. Many spheres, particularly those of consumer and industrial electronics, computers and telecommunications are being opened for imperialist capital and technology. Imperialist corporations, in collaboration with big Indian business houses, are setting up ‘screw driver’ assembly plants with economies of scale. The economy is already suffering from severe budgetary crisis due to the servicing of the IMF loan and other commercial borrowings, which had been used to finance the import of technology and industrial goods. This crisis is sought to be overcome on the backs of the people.

Decreasing budgetary resources for education (a miserly 1.2% in the 7^th Plan), the trend towards privatisation in education, increasing financial involvement and linkages of industry with educational institutions are all symptoms of the economic crisis. The NEP is meant to cope with this situation on the economic front. Centres of education will be ‘modernised’ or new ones created to supply the manpower needs in the new spheres of economy being opened to imperialist capital, for example, to provide for computer literacy. In the political sphere, it is mainly geared towards meeting the threat to the ruling classes by the rising national aspirations of the peoples on the subcontinent by enforcing in a more draconian fashion the idea of ‘national integration.’

‘National Integration’ – Retrograde Aim of NEP

In the social sciences, particularly in the area of Indian history, one major aim of the curriculum is to promote ‘national integration’, the idea of the “unity and integrity of the nation.” This aim of strengthening the ‘Indian identity’ and promoting ‘national integration’ has always formed a core part of the educational policies of the reactionary Indian government. This is in the interest of the ruling big bourgeoisie, which, as junior partner to imperialism, seeks control over the all-India market. It is thus unable to acknowledge the fact that India is a multi-nationality country constituted by many nationalities having distinct identities. These nationalities had been forcibly ‘integrated’ by the British colonialists in their interest of expanding the British Empire. After 1947 the indigenous ruling classes sought to continue this exploitation and oppression of the nationalities within the ambit of the “Indian nation state.”

The liberal version of this ideology – “unity in diversity” – projects the heterogeneity of nationalities to be at the most one of different religions, castes and languages, which, in spite of their diversity, constitute a cohesive unity. This concept of “unity in diversity” is chauvinistic and paternalistic because it suppresses the democratic right to self-determination of the various nationalities, their right to secession, which can be the only base for a unity which is truly voluntary. The core ideological element of this “Indian nationhood” is a pro-Hindu upper caste bias. ‘National integrity,’ ‘secularism’, ‘democracy’ are only masks to spread an ideology of Hindu and upper caste supremacy, which, with active state support, pervades the entire education system as the rest of society.

In the present situation, the ruling classes of India feel threatened to the core by the upsurge of national struggles in the country, particularly by the struggle of the Sikhs in Punjab and that of the Gorkhas in Darjeeling. It is mainly to contain this danger to the “unity and integrity” of the country that the NEP has as a major pillar the enforcement of a National Core Curriculum in schools: “The common core will include the history of India’s freedom movement, the constitutional obligations and other content essential to nurture national identity. These elements will cut across subject areas and will be designed to promote values such as India’s common cultural heritage.” (“National Educational Policy,” 1986, Ministry of Human Resources Development, p. 4). The orientation and refresher courses planned in the Academic Staff Colleges in universities will also have the topic of national integration as an essential one. Part of this retrograde development of an “Indian unity and identity” is the language policy adopted in the education system. The NEP has no plans of developing the various languages in India. The elite Navodaya Vidyalayas planned in every district of the country will have only Hindi or English as the medium of instruction.

Perspective of Teachers’ Struggles

NEP measures against teachers such as Code of Conduct, increased control and curtailing of democratic rights can be understood only in the background of this economic and political crisis facing the ruling classes. The trends of bureaucratisation, centralisation and technocratic approach in educational decision-making are a natural corollary to an economy based on monopolisation and centralisation.

The NEP aims to facilitate increased and intensified imperialist and comprador exploitation (the leap into the 21^st century) while retaining, and perhaps even expanding, the all-India state structure as a ‘unit’ of plunder. The education system is one instrument for carrying out the above objective of the ruling classes. Teachers, being a key element in the education system, are given a more privileged position in society than the other oppressed and exploited sections. At the same time, they are not remunerated on par with bureaucrats in the administrative services having the same educational qualifications; they are less privileged than the middle and higher bureaucracy because this is found to be more pivotal to sustain the present exploitative order. Thus, though the teaching community historically arose from and still comprises mainly of the upper and middle castes/classes and is imbued with a pro-ruling class pro-imperialist mentality, ridden with many undemocratic feudal values, it still finds itself in an objective contradiction with the ruling classes and with imperialism. Its actual position is that of sellers of mental skills. In its living conditions, too, it is closer to the most exploited and oppressed toiling peoples. The economic laws of imperialist capital work against them, and they are pushed into steadily deteriorating living standards. They are subject to increased control and repressive and authoritarian measures.

This is the position of the vast majority of teachers, particularly those working in private or unregistered institutions, where the degree of exploitation and authoritarianism is greater. There is only a small minority of teacher, who, because of their connections with the bureaucracy, imperialist government and institutions, and the ruling class political parties, find themselves positions of power in leading government bodies and committees, have extra sources of income, are completely bought up and play a thoroughly reactionary and collaborative role in manufacturing ideologies for fleecing and deceiving the people.

The agreement reached on September 4 by K.K. Theckadath and Mrinmoy Bhattacharya (president and general secretary of AIFUCTO respectively) with the Human Resources Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao has been widely acknowledged to have been a sell-out of the limited demands of the teachers. The two leaders, who signed the agreement and betrayed the strike, are members of the CPI(M) and CPI. This strike and its betrayal cannot, however, be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in the context of the broad pattern of trade unionism carried out by the two ‘left’ parties for a long time now. The observed pattern is that a hiatus is developed between and organised and unorganised section. The CPI and CPI(M) concentrate their activities mainly on the organised section; the demands of the other section are generally always mentioned, but preferably bottom-most on the list. Mainly economic demands are taken up; broader issues like in the case of teachers, the Code of Conduct, the implications of the NEP, may be mentioned in the beginning, but tend to get dropped out and the demands are narrowed down. When the trade union bureaucrats reach the negotiating table some face-saving minor concessions are dangled by the government, the union bosses pocket their share, and toll the ‘victory’ bells. Another strike has been smashed and the overall interests of the ruling classes have been saved.

If the majority of the teachers understood the true source of their exploitation and oppression, they would not allow themselves to get entangled by bankrupt trade-unionists in demands which actually aim at perpetuating the existing system of exploitation and oppression. They would also not orient themselves basically to the demands of the relatively better positioned among the teachers (like the demand for the Merit Promotion Scheme) but would orient themselves towards really improving the economic position and working conditions of the large section of unorganised teachers working in private institutions. They would also not confine themselves to mainly economic demands, but would also raise demands which hit out and question the existing corrupt and decadent order in a really radical way. For that, however, they will have to begin to struggle against the ingrained blinkers of bourgeois, pro-imperialist and feudal attitudes and see their place only in the ranks of those who are truly fighting for a democratic and anti-imperialist order of things. This would mean aligning with those sections of students and school-teachers waging theoretical and practical struggles for a truly national (which can never be ‘Indian’ nationalism) democratic and scientific system of education, which can ultimately be realised only in a democratic and anti-imperialist socio-economic order. This also implies allying with and participating in broader social movements for national liberation and democracy, carried and led by the most oppressed and exploited sections, the workers and peasants, of the various nationalities in India. Many may find this truly difficult, or even impossible. Because of the class background of this section in general which is petty-bourgeois, and which is also reflected in the character of their unions and their demands, it may be unrealistic to expect them as a strata to wage any uncompromising struggle or even to grasp fully the real political nature of their situation. But, many may become vacillating partners, and those who do come forward in such a struggle would prove themselves to be valuable partners in the broader movement against exploitation and oppression and for the emancipation of the various peoples.

[Published in Mass Line in two parts Dec. 1987 and Jan-Feb. 1988]