As the twentieth century
closes in on us, the clamour of voices raised in advocacy of the need
for a paradigm shift in the concept of university education is fast
reaching a crescendo. These voices are an offshoot of the discourse of
economic liberalisation, of the much touted globalisation of national
economies, propagating ever more aggressively the transfer of the public
sector to private hands, the jettisoning of all social welfare measures,
and the discarding of any vision, however hazy, of the state’s
responsibility to plan and intervene in the interests of those who
constitute the overwhelming majority of members of this society.
The apparently compelling rhetoric in
which this discourse is couched seeks to suggest with as much certainty
and self assuredness as Francis Fukuyama did the "end of
history", that we have entered an era of internationalisation, of
an end to the deep contradictions between the previously colonised
peoples and those seeking to perpetuate by other means the power and
profits of colonialism in a post-colonial age. Globalisation – a
euphemism for structural adjustment to the needs of imperialism-–,
has, it is claimed, set a new agenda for the economy, for social
development, and therefore for the universities. Modernisation of the
economy–-or rather the receding will to fend off the long arm of the
multinationals--has, it is argued, qualitatively different requirements
in manpower and occupational skills and demands, therefore, a going
beyond, a restructuring, in fact a transformation of the
‘traditional’ role of the university.
The need for change in the universities
cannot be disputed, for as institutions committed to the pursuit of an
ever expanding and changing body of knowledge, they have to learn to
keep track of its shifting sands. Syllabus revision, restructuring of
courses, introduction of new subjects of study, establishing
interdisciplinary links are all ‘traditional’ means adopted by
universities to reform, even revolutionise the content and methods of
study and research. Whether or not this is done adequately and whether
universities are really carrying out their responsibilities towards the
society that invests in their upkeep and development is the issue of
another debate and universities have long been the targets of much
criticism on this count, some legitimate, some illegitimate. But this
criticism is today being mobilised in support of the increasing pressure
for a paradigm shift from the university’s ‘traditional’ role, a
shift that envisages a very different kind of change and in fact puts
the entire concept of the university into question.
While lip service is still paid to the
original idea of the university as a centre for advancing the frontiers
of knowledge and therefore as a fulcrum of social development in which
it is not merely worthwhile but necessary to invest, the new catchwords
are privatization, self-financing, vocationalisation and job-oriented
courses. Arguments are put forward about the financial unviability of
the universities, the inability of the universities to cater to the
changing needs of the economy, the growing army of educated unemployed,
etc. That these proposed recipes seek to perpetuate and even legitimise
the sharp inequalities in society by undermining even the idea of a
university being theoretically open to the best minds from all sections
of society is obvious. But the arguments in their circularity would
point out that there was a vast difference between theory and practice,
since the country could boast of the largest number of illiterates, of
inadequate schools and of a large proportion of dropouts from school
education. The universities are now being asked, however, not to engage
with and suggest solutions to this problem but to surrender to its
consequences.
The steadily increasing brain drain
particularly in the fields of engineering and technology has been a
cause for immense alarm, and rightly so, since a developing country has
great need of the people trained in these areas. But rather than
investigate the causes of the problem what is suggested is a raising of
fees in institutions specialising in these areas to such an extent that
only the rich can afford to pay. If the products of these institutions
are using their specialised training to merely get lucrative jobs abroad
then they might as well pay for it! This may sound logical enough, but
in effect, the doors of these institutions are being closed on those who
cannot afford to pay. Institutions raised in public interest are being
turned into shops to cater to the private ambitions of a select few.
Since the products of universities
occupy leading positions in society, in the economy, in the bureaucracy
and in the political sphere, it is recognised by all that their
university education should equip them to carry out their professional
responsibilities effectively. The question that is more and more
forgotten, however, is in whose interest are these leaders of society
expected to direct their effective functioning: in their own narrow
self-interest or in the interest of the people who constitute that
society and who after all make it possible through their labour and
deprivation that the few may enjoy the benefits of a university
education.
The question may sound antediluvian in
a day and age when fuelled by globalisation and modernisation the
culture of self-interest has come to dominate and moreover, this
self-interest is merely defined in the narrow terms of "making
it" to a career with which one can afford the glittering array of
consumer goods in the ever more glamourous shop windows. But surely the
university by its very definition was not expected to cater to such a
culture and instead to nurture and encourage the intellectual and
emotional urges of students in a very different direction.
The university from its very inception
was conceived as an institution that concerned itself with society as a
totality. The branching off into various disciplines was to facilitate
the study of different aspects of this totality or, one might say, to
enable different vantage points on a subject of common concern. The
universities, establishing their significant social presence in the wake
of the European Enlightenment, became centres for the ideological
struggle against religious dogma and superstition and torch-bearers of
the vision of a society founded on reason that put the achievements of
modern science at the service of mankind. Advancing the frontiers of
scientific knowledge and generating philosophical and social critiques
of society and social processes were seen as central to the functions of
the university and an essential requirement for social progress. It is
on this perception that the idea of autonomy of the universities was
based.
Similar perceptions guided the
establishment and expansion of universities after independence. As a
result, the Indian university system produced some outstanding minds
committed to making the political independence achieved in 1947 a
palpable reality for the vast majority of the people who still lived in
slavery and bondage. And this despite the severe constraints imposed by
the heritage of colonialism and underdevelopment. The role and function
of universities were seen as integral to the process of social
engineering. It was their business to develop the critical faculties,
creative potential and independent initiative of the students and to
encourage the application of these abilities in professional life to the
task of liberating the people from the yoke of material want and
intellectual deprivation.
Today it is suggested that such
perceptions of the role of universities are passe. As the interests of
fattened Indian big business and previously frowned upon multinational
companies conjoin to change the economic landscape in this country, we
are told that the pursuit of knowledge may be a fine thing but it is
really a luxury that we cannot afford and can possibly do without. After
all, globalisation will give us access to the relevant advances in
knowledge being made where such things can be better afforded. The need
of the hour is not independent scientific research and social analysis
but skilled manpower trained exclusively to fit the requirements of the
new and not so new economic bosses.
The pathetic claims of our being on the
brink of a new era of economic prosperity that might lend legitimacy to
the demand for a paradigm shift in the universities from knowledge to
skills, from independent and creative thinking to a culture of
subservience, are exposed in their hollowness as the world watches in
wonder and fear the severe crisis gripping East Asia.
The rhetoric of globalization and
modernization thus seeks to change the terms of economic, social and
political discourse to overshadow the reality of the vast misery and
exploitation of the majority of the people. The rhetoric of a paradigm
shift in university education uses the very same terms to advocate that
the university be made to cater to the needs not of society but of the
market, that it be made into another shop offering training in skills,
with skills having lucrative future prospects being expensive and out of
reach for most people. There is no evidence to show that any of these
suggested changes would bring any social benefit and much to demonstrate
the opposite.
Originally published in The Hindu,
folio (issue on Higher Education), March 22, 1998. Reproduced with
author’s permission.