manish & chandan-edu-paper

8/7/2019 manish & chandan-edu-paper

1/9


2/9

Social Change : September 2006 Social Change : September 2006

practice always presupposes a preparation for particular forms of social

life, a particular vision of community, and a particular vision of the future

(Giroux, 1998). Giroux assigns education a central position in the social

process. Education has this central role to play in the social process because

it is an act of a human being and it subjects a human being. To put it

differently, education is a mechanism through which human beings

produce human beings human beings as social subject. A preparationfor particular forms of social life essentially means that human beings

consciously influence the learning of other human beings to mould them

in accordance with the moral and political values that they want to build

the future society on. Education, therefore, is always based on ethics

and politics, and even the content of education is politically determined

(Harris, 1979). Or, to put it crudely, education is politics.

Being a political activity, education also becomes an arena of struggle for

social transformation. Therefore, when we indulge ourselves in a discourse

on education, we need to ascertain what kind of politics are we engaging

ourselves with. Is it a constructive politics grounded in the socio-

economic realities and engaged in a social transformation agenda aimingat more equitable, just and democratic social relations? Or, is it a d ivisive

politics based on manipulations, fabrications and myths either to maintain

the status quo of unjust socio-economic relations or to create one in order

to maintain the dominance and hegemony of the few? So, when we talk

about all-round education, we must explain what kind of politics we are

talking about. In our opinion, all-round education simply means that

everybody knows everything; that all kinds of knowledge should be

accessible to all. There must not be any exclusion from education at all.

In other words, it means an education which eliminates the necessity of

some expert to tell us what is right and what is wrong; which enables

everybody to decide on his/her own about what is right and wrong. And,consequently, it is an education, which destroys hierarchies and

subjugations, and instead furthers equality, dignity, justice and democracy.

However, in the present neoliberal era where the logic of the market is

being propagated as the ultimate determinant of the future, we find

that equality, dignity, justice and democracy are under serious threat.

In such a situation the need for all-round education becomes critical

for reclaiming democracy and human dignity because the politics of

human resistance resistance against neoliberalism, is necessary, as

Rikowski puts it, first of all within education and training because

these are the places where psychologically inherent notions of

hierarchy and oppression operate in the most forced, systematic and

overt manner (McLaren and Rikowski, 2001). The following two

sect ions discuss how under global isat ion, educat ion is being

transformed and used as a tool of subjugation of human beings for

the benefit of the big businesses.

II I

EDUCATION UNDER GLOBALISATION

Education, as a political activity, is essentially concerned with transmission

of knowledge, which takes place in an organised form through an

institutionalised education system. Therefore, in order to understand the

state of education it is necessary to examine, apart from the content and

mode of its transmission, the institutional structure within which the

transmission of knowledge takes place. Even a cursory examination of

the Indian education system over the last 15 years suggests that the meaning

of education has changed from being a public good to a private good.

This shift is reflected not only in the content and transmission mode butalso in the institutional changes that have taken place over the years. These

changes can be understood through an analysis of changes in national

policy framework, international economic institutions, and in the perception

of education in general. The following paragraphs are an attempt towards

outlining these changes.

EDUCATION REDEFINED

The decade of the 1990s saw India taking a sharp turn away from the

welfare state. With the implementation of the Structural Adjustment

Programme and New Economic Policy, as per the IMF-World Bank

conditionalities, the State began to withdraw from all social sector servicesincluding education thereby leading the way to the commercialisation of

all services. Ironically, at the same time, the World Bank began funding

various literacy programmes to achieve the Education For All targets

set by UNESCO at the Jomtien Conference in 1990 (Goldstein, 2004).

Today literacy, not education, is the indicator of development. This is

understandable as development today means just glowing markets and not

strengthening democracy and general well-being of the masses. Thats

why even the budget speeches of consecutive finance ministers highlight

literacy programmes such as Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Aanganwari, etc. in

their remarks on education This was a shift from universal education to

universal literacy as a national policy target. This shift was a result of


3/9


negotiating between IMF-World Bank conditionalities of reducing public

expenditure and giving a free hand to the private sector (neoliberal agenda)

and a simultaneous compulsion to fulfil the commitment to the Jomtien

declaration on Education for All. The government is thus caught in a

dichotomous situation, where on the one hand, it is being forced to

commercialise and privatise education, where education becomes available

only for those who can buy it, while on the other the Constitution as wellas commitment to Education for All programme requires the government

to ensure that everybody gets education irrespective of the fact whether

he/she can buy it. Its a pity that in order to come out of this situation the

government chose to compromise with the commitment towards

Education for All instead of stopping commercialisation and privatisation

of education. Replacing education with literacy is a dilution of the meaning

of education. A literate person cannot be equated with an educated person.

It is unfortunate that for the government today the meaning of education

is reduced to merely reading and writing, and the values of dignity, justice

and democracy are left out.

TRADE IN EDUCATION

The WTO under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has

made education a tradable good. This means that now education too can

be traded internationally and would be governed according to laws of

market and free competition. The Article I of Part I of GATS puts forth

four main modes of trade in services (WTO: 1999), which are also applied

to trade in educational services. These four modes are called consumption

abroad, cross-border supply, commercial presence in the consuming

country, and presence of natural persons. The consumption abroad mode

recognises the mobility of students for education overseas, i.e. students

can go to foreign countries for the purpose of getting an education. Underthe cross-border supply mode distance learning, any type of testing service,

and supply of educational materials through the Internet as well as postal

services for crossing the national borders have been acknowledged.

Commercial presence enables foreign educational investors to set up

educational institutions through direct foreign investment and joint ventures

in the host country. The presence of natural persons allows movement of

individual educators across the countries for a period, though not well

defined in GATS documents but roughly from six to ten years.

The most critical of these four modes are the consumption abroad mode

and commercial presence, for they allow the international big education

firms to expand their market globally. Various initiatives sponsored by

governments, universities and private firms, such as education fairs,

exemplify the competition over the global education market (Khadaria,

2004). Khadaria observes that there is nothing new in GATS. All that it

contains is mere old wine in new bottles. The only thing that is new is

the movement of disembodied human capital but that too is due to changes

in information and communication technologies. He is right as far as themodes of trade are concerned but the purpose of education is not the

same any more. Unlike the educational institutes set up by the British

during colonial rule in India, the purpose of direct commercial presence

today is not to produce clerks for colonial government as per Lord

Macaulays diplomatic move but to produce a global workforce for

international business and to earn profit. The purpose of education today

is not administrative but economic as clearly mentioned in the background

note of WTO on trade in education. It explicitly says, Education enables

them [students] to face the challenges of technological change and global

commercial integration. Through its capacity to provide skills and enable

effective participation in the workforce, education is crucial to economicadjustment (WTO, 1998: 2). Also the Most Favoured Nation Clause under

the WTO agreement is applicable on trade in education (Part II, Article II

of GATS) which essentially means that no country can now set legal and

administrative compulsions to direct its education system according to its

national requirements. This is certainly not the old wine, at least if we

consider the post-independence pre-GATS period.

CHANGING PERCEPTIONS AND SELLING EDUCATION

Along with all the above-mentioned changes in the national economic policy

and international economic institutions one very significant aspect that

needs to be reflected upon is the changing perception with regard toeducation amongst the people. To begin with, as Chekhov significantly

underlined the idea and purpose of education, the notion of being educated

is associated with a better and holistic understanding of the society and

subsequently commanding a great amount of respect in the society.

However, in the present socio-economic and political milieu this notion

has undergone a serious change. Being educated now seems to have

acquired a new meaning of being able to sell oneself. In the process

education is a tool for the purpose of making oneself better equipped

with skills demanded by the labour market. To exemplify, one may note

the fact that increasingly youngsters are opting for subjects/courses that

would help them in getting a lucrative pay package because the more


4/9


salary and perks one gets, the more admiration and respect one commands

(Khadaria, 2004). An increasing demand for such subjects/ courses has

led to the mushrooming of some accredited and many non-accredited

private institutes selling degrees and diplomas. This phenomenon has also

changed the perception of education to the limited, market-oriented notion

of knowledge providers and knowledge consumers. In the race to

attract more students these institutes follow an extensive campaignstrategy, as evident in the national dailies and magazines that are flooded

with lucrative advertisements of private educational institutes. At the same

time rating the topmost educational institutes in the country for pursuing

higher education in various streams has become almost an annual ritual.

For instance, a recent issue ofIndia Today (June 5, 2006), a weekly

national magazine, has come up with its 10th annual survey of best colleges

in India in different streams of studies. The survey was conducted by

INDIA TODAY AC Nielsen ORG MARG. What this story tells the

reader is about the top 10 colleges in India in each field of studyarts,

commerce, science, engineering, law and medicine. It also gives the reason

as to why the superceded college has got the top position. Apart from this

general information it gives a list of the top five colleges in each stream in

selected big cities. As one can easily guess, this issue is full of

advertisements of several other private educational institutes.

India Today is not the only magazine that brings out such special stories

every year right before the beginning of the academic year. A number of

other national magazines too come up with such stories and surveys.

They too get as many ads from different educational institutions. All this

sounds perfectly normal and desirable to a student who has just come out

of the school, to the parents who, no doubt and quite genuinely, wish to

see their children moving towards a secure future. But if one tries to

locate this annual event of making educational choices and advertisingeducation within the frames of philosophy of education then this normalcy

and desirability is an alarm bell for the future of the society. What this

advertising and evaluation or ranking of educational institutes indicates is

a perilous tendency of separating education from the existence of human

beings, sparing education from its responsibility to inculcate democratic

values and ethics of citizenship, making education a commodity and a

student a consumer. In other words, it cries out aloud that the education,

a crucial public good, is no longer a necessary social entity but a

commodity that is available for sale and purchase in the market place. It

suggests that schools are now an extension of the market place and students

are primarily consumers. It is not surprising, then, that the educational

institutes along with the coaching centres top the list of revenue sources

that media gets a huge amount of advertising money from.

It is interesting, in this context, to note that the survey was conducted by

a market surveying agency and not by any social science research institute.

This invariably implies that the ranking of various colleges must have

been defined according to market requirements, i.e. what the top colleges

provide for the market a particular kind of workforce, to be very precise.Job security arising from being students of a particular college does not

necessarily mean that they are responsible social beings but it guarantees

only one fact that the college produces the kind of people that are demanded

by the market. This is evident from the advertisements as well. Every

institute highlights its links with MNCs and Industry, its record of

placement, significance of its curriculum for the competitive globalised

world. In an interview, for instance, Lalage Prabhu, School Director of

Pathways World School, said that the International Baccalaureate (IB)

Curriculum that the school offers is such that it trains the students in

international mindedness so that they do not feel alienated while working

in any part of the world (Times of India, July 2: 2006). Most of theseinternational or world schools run by big corporations with huge

investments who require this kind of international mindedness, which

allows them the benefits of flexible, multi-skilled labour. Thus, such is

the scenario of the so-called knowledge-economy today that those who

demand a certain kind of skill are the ones who sell it. They sell skill to

you at profit and then they appropriate the benefits of your increased

productivity, further increasing their profit.

Another aspect of selling education is the loan scheme for students

provided by almost all public and private sector banks today. These loan

schemes operate on commercial lines like other consumer loans. Studentsborrow and repay with interest the only difference between a consumer

loan and an educational loan being that in the case of the former, one

needs to have a regular stream of income, whereas in the latter case the

borrower relies on the expected gain from the education and consequent

job. This essentially means that education has a value according to the

economic returns it may produce. Only then borrowing for education

makes an economic sense, otherwise just for the sake of acquiring

knowledge, one would not borrow money and pay interest on it. The

economisation of social sector evaluation, in short, has been the hallmark

of the neoliberal era. Spences Nobel Prize winning work on market

signalling epitomises this phenomenon. Spence argues that by taking a


5/9


risk of investing in education an employment seeker or employee signals

the employer that he is superior to those who are not investing (Spence,

1973). Thus, education now is no more evaluated on the basis of its role

in building a more just and sensitive society, instead the terms of reference

have become increasingly economic.

The philosophy of student loans treats higher education as a highly

individualised commodity, as against the well-acknowledged public goodnature. Loans are another mechanism to keep the market going. Like other

consumer loans student loans too create demand for commodities by

encouraging people to spend their fu ture incomes in advance. Tilak rightly

sums up this change in the financial aspect of education by arguing that

the introduction of student loans indicates a shift in the responsibility of

higher education from social domain (state responsibility) to household

domain and within households from parents to the children from present

to the future (Tilak, 2004).

What the above discussion implies is a twofold phenomenon. One

education is now sold and purchased according to the purchasing powerof the student (or parents). In other words, education has become an

industry. Two a good educational institute today means that it serves the

industry, not society. Well, remember, industry and society are not

synonymous as most of the growth enthusiasts tend to believe. Otherwise,

how would one explain the contrast between growing industry and dying

people? Thus what we find today is a breaking up of education-society

dialectic and establishing education-industry conformity by redefining the

purpose of education. In the next section, we discuss the key institutional

changes at national level that have strengthened the education-industry

links in the last 15 years.

IV

CHANGE ININSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT: CEMENTING

EDUCATION-INDUSTRY LINK

Society operates through various institutions. Institutions are understood

as norms and compulsions (North, 1990). The State is the most powerful

institution that regulates the activities of all the other institutions and

structures within a social system. Education being essentially a public

good for the betterment of the society in general, and the individual in

particular, has been the task of the State and State alone. But the past two

decades of the Indian experience depicts a different story consistent with

the changes brought about by the process of privatisation, liberalisation

and globalisation. Now, education is no longer an exclusive domain reserved

for intervention only by the State but the overarching notion of the market

and profit has encouraged an active participation and collaboration of the

private players. This phenomenon has been given an added legitimacy by

various Supreme Court pronouncements and the proposed changes in the

legal framework relating to education.

The conception that higher education generates new knowledge and

subsequently a new labour force makes the higher education sector the focal

point of interest for the industrial forces. The formation of various committees

headed by industrialists (from the Punnaih Committee to the Birla-Ambani

Committee during the 1990s) by successive governments at the Centre

indicates that the State perceives education as merely a training process to

produce the workers for Industry. The Birla-Ambani Report (submitted to

the Prime Ministers Council on Trade and Industry in the year 2000)

recommended that the entire higher education sector must be allowed to be

privatised and public support from secondary education must be gradually

withdrawn. The central argument of the report was that education at all levels

must be determined by the market forces (Sadgopal, 2006). This report is a

strong indicator towards the fact that the industrial sector is keenly awaiting

the full green signal from the government towards making education as a

domain of its privilege. Consequently, a gradual strengthening of industry-

education links is taking place at a galloping pace thereby automatically creating

space for international educational shops to flood the national boundaries.

Tilak (2004) has pointed out that a large number of universities have also set

up university-industry cells with the support of the UGC (that happens to be

the apex monitoring body of higher education in the country). This is being

done mainly to promote close links between universities and the industrialsector. Tilak argues, though public-private partnership has become a

buzzword, many realise that it is not partnership, but a deal, a business deal

to make education and research in higher education institutions, not socially

relevant but market relevant. To further substantiate it is noteworthy that in

a document considered by the committee on Universalisation of Secondary

Education constituted by CABE (Central Advisory Board on Education) in

2005, it was stated, now that education has become a commodity, what is

wrong in making profit out of it?. This document represented the proceedings

of a meeting that the Ministry of HRD had with ASSOCHAM on the subject

of the role of private education providers in the field of secondary education

(Combat Law, 2006).


6/9


7/9


social good, i.e. like all other commodities it is accessible only to

those who have ability to purchase it and only that kind of education

would be provided which has sufficient demand for making profit.

There would be no state intervention and directives at all. In this

section however, we intend to indicate towards a much larger issue.

According to Karl Marx, a commodity is, in the first place, an object

outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants ofsome sort or another (Marx, 1976). In this context, as has been

discussed in Section II of this paper, education cannot be considered

as a commodity in the Marxist sense as it is all about inculcating

democratic values and criticality which cannot exist outside us.

Democratic values and criticali ty, however, can be induced in a proper

institutional environment, which can be a subject of market activity,

market in the sense a place where goods and services are exchanged

for goods or services or money. So as a subject of exchange , education

can be a commodity in economic terms but not in the Marxist sense.

But as the discussion in Section III clearly shows that education in

modern times has been redefined as a marketable good and its only

significance lies in making a person saleable in the market, it has

become a commodity even in the Marxist sense. And herein lies a

reason to worry because it essentially means that education an

institutionalised attempt to shape and sharpen ones intellect and critical

faculty no more influences the consciousness and the ability to

change the immediate socio-economic environment. In other words,

a man stops being a creator.

HUMAN BEINGS AS COMMODITIES

As has been discussed in the previous sections the present educational

ethos and values of the students and their parents result in opting for thateducation, content-wise, which is likely to get internationalised in the labour

markets. Of late this tendency has become more than visible in India.

Khadaria, for example, notes a shift in the choice of the majors, by

students entering the senior secondary schooling (after Class X) and

colleges in favour of subjects like commerce and marketable languages,

and away from the sciences or social sciences over the last decade. In

postgraduate courses too, there has been a definite shift towards the

business studies and away from the general university education(Khadaria,

2004). In Rikowskis words this is an indication of the deepening of

capitalist social relations and along with it we are evolving into a new

life form: human capital. He asserts that such capitalisation of humanity

is inevitable in the development of capitalism where humans increasingly

become something other than human; a new life form, a new species.:

human capital (Rikowski, 2002a, 111).

If we see the political economy of globalisation, i.e. the ways in which

human beings relate to each other through the exchange of the products

of their labour power at a global scale through market mediation, then we

realise globalisation as an attempt of global capital to expand a homogeneousfavourable social relation at global level through integrating various national

economies. Institutions like GATS and TRIPS are a manifestation of this

attempt. A closer analysis of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights

(TRIPS), for instance, would reveal that it is another instrument of

international capital that institutionalises the commodification of humanity

by facilitating corporate ownership over human beings. TRIPS has been

widely debated during the past decade. The focus of the debate has been

primarily around its implications for knowledge-based industries such as

the pharmaceutical industry and the ownership of knowledge. A patent

right essentially means ownership over a product of mans intellect. When

we see TRIPS in the context of corporate financed research (directly in

the MNC labs or via public-private partnership) and corporate holding of

majority of patents, then it acquires a wider political and ethical meaning.

The work of an individual or a team of individual scientists intellect is

owned by an MNCs through patents. Since knowledge is always embedded

in a human being and cannot be separated from the existence of the human

being, a patent held by MNC means that the person who produced the

patented intellectual work is owned by the MNC. With knowledge, the

person is also owned by the MNC just like a commodity.

VI

CONCLUSION

The above discussion attempts at outlining some of the crucial tendencies

relating to education as well as in the institutional environment that are shaping

with the rise of global capitalism. In Section II we have said that the main

purpose of education is to democratise the minds of students and help them

become responsible and sensitive social beings. Sections III and IV examine

the ways in which the dominant market paradigm has subverted and co-

opted education for its own benefits. An attempt to understand the political

economy of this subversion has been made in Part V where we argue that the

intensification of capitalism inevitably leads to such situations where everything,

here education and humanity, is turned into a commodity a distinct and


8/9


alienated form of capital. This has wider implications for the democratic

values and the future of the society. In the end here, we propose to outline

these concerns in brief for further deliberation.

MARKET AND DEMOCRACY

The previous sections have discussed how schools have become an

extension of the market place, thereby reducing students to mereconsumers. Within an ever-expanding corporate culture, schools are just

another investment opportunity with very high stakes. Such education

offers greater monetary returns for those who have access to education

and leaves others to plunge into the spiral of poverty. In other words, the

market makes education exclusionary where a great number of people

cannot participate in the social process. Such absence of participation is

undemocratic. Such a commodification of education essentially leads to a

valueless society. The sheer lack of active engagement with the immediate

social environment (all education is targeted to instil international

mindedness) and lack of a mechanism to inculcate a consciousness that

makes humans responsible to other human beings (the sole objective ofgetting education is to become competitive, superior to others and to

achieve individual well-being) can never be conducive to a democratic

and sensitive society. As Giroux rightly argues that as commercial culture

replaces public culture, the language of the market becomes a substitute

for the language of democracy.market does not provide guidance on

matters of justice and fairness that are at the heart of a democratic civil

society (Giroux, 1998). It is common sense that businesses dont like

the workers to question or revolt. So they keep them busy and insecure.

The drive for higher incomes and luxuries coupled with the worry to

repay the loans (todays economy can well be called a credit-economy

because a major part of total consumption is on credit), of which studentloans too is a part, doesnt allow people to take the risk of engaging

themselves with the activities of social transformation. Thus the logic of

the market necessarily undermines participation and therefore democracy.

WHAT MAY LIE AHEAD

Murmann in his study of German leadership in the synthetic dye industry

between the 1850s and 1910 provides a fine historical account of why

education is an important concern for industry and business for economic

adjustments (Murmann, 2003). It also explains how important it is for

the businesses to have a favourable institutional environment. The rise of

organic chemistry as an important academic discipline in Germany and

the abundance of the research in the field of synthetic dyes during that

period was a result of change in education policy including setting up new

institutes, providing funding and maintaining close links between business

and education infrastructure. The current trend of increasing the share of

corporate funded research, corporations intervention in educational

institutes management, and changes in the institutional environment at aglobal level under the auspices of WTO agreements is nothing but a scaling

up of the German experience. The increasing emphasis on technical and

market-oriented education, setting up of new institutions and diversion of

funds towards these areas of study is similar to German experience as

well. The role of lobbying that is well documented by Murmann is no

secret in the case of WTO negotiations. The logic of phenomenal growth

as a justification to education-industry-institution links is very well

substantiated by the success of German leadership in the synthetic dye

industry.

Murmanns story, however, is not a complete one, as it does not explore

the implications of the changed education system though it was not theobjective of his study. But the point here is that today the main discourse

about changes in institutions and market-academia linkages would happily

cite the German success in support of such initiatives without looking

at its other possible socio-political implications which Murmann does not

talk about. We know that Germany experienced the rise of Nazism, an

absolutely undesirable socio-political phenomenon, in the days after the

period of Murmanns analysis. It is well known that the birth of Hitler

began in school, supported by students and later the big business in

Germany. Can we see a link between education, business and rise of Nazism

in Germany? So far, there is no well-documented account exploring any

such link (it might be our ignorance as well) but we do know that a hugenumber of books of art, literature and social sciences were burnt during

the Nazi era. How could a well-educated country (Germany had a wonderful

history of education facilities and original critical thinking) be fooled by

Nazi propositions? Can we seek an explanation in the content and kind of

education that was being provided at that time? Our assertion is in the

affirmative. When the education system is targeted to produce only

technicians, workers, professionals and managers who only know how

to take orders, when the education system is devoid of any critical training

in social values and ethics and trains the students to evaluate things only

in economic terms then the society becomes uncritical, undemocratic and

highly individualistic. And any such society, in the case of economic crisis,


9/9


may produce Fascism (Togliatti, 1976). For instance, the role of education

institutes such as Saraswati Shishu Mandirs is more than evident in the

rise of right wing political forces and communal hatred in India in the last

two decades. However, this crucial aspect needs to be examined

exhaustively because this nexus between education-business-state has

never happened before on such a large scale as under present globalisation,

and therefore the perils, even with the minimum possibility, are bound tobe disastrous for humanity. And for this very reason, we must explore,

analyse and rethink education as a force of social transformation and

democratic values.

REFERENCES

Chandru, K. (2006). Teachers on Sale: Contract-based Teachers are now Gurus, Combat

Law, Vol.5, Issue 1, February-March, pp. 45-49.

Combat Law (2006). Commodification and Cooption of Language, Vol. 5, Issue 1. February-

March, pp. 28.

Desai, Mihir (2006). Retreat of the Judiciary: Last Frontier Lost?, Combat Law, Vol. 5,

Issue I, February-March, pp. 50-52.

Freire, Paulo (1970)[1993]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Translated by Myra Bergman

Ramos, London: Penguin.

Giroux, Henry (1998). Education Incorporated? Educational Leadership, Vol. 56, No.

2, pp. 12-17.

Giroux, Henry A. (2002). The Corporate War Against Higher Education, Workplace,

issue 5(1), available at: http://www.louisville.edu/journal/workplace/issue5p1/giroux.html

Goldstein, Harvey (2004). Education for All: The Globalisation of Learning Targets,

Comparative Education, vol. 40(1), pp. 7-14.

Gorky, Maxim (1914)[1987]. Anton Chekhov, in Anton Chekhov, Collected Works:

Volume I - Stories 1880-1885, Translated by Alex Miller and Ivy Litvinov, Moscow:

Raduga, pp. 7-22.

Government of India (2005). Draft Right to Free and Compulsory Education Bill.

Harris, Kevin (1979). Education and Knowledge: The Structured Misrepresentation of

Reality, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

India Today (June 5, 2006). Top Ten Colleges, pp. 34-57.

Khadaria, Binod (2004). Higher Education Under the WTO Regime of Trade in Services

: A Critical Comment, in Kumar, Arun (ed.), Challenges Facing Indian Universities:

Collection of Papers Based on a Seminar Organised by JNUTA on October 2, 2004

in Jawaharlal Nehru University, JNUTA, New Delhi, pp. 68-72.

Marx, Karl (1976). Capital Vol. I, (Translated by Ben Fowkes), Penguin, London.

McLaren, P. and Rikowski, G. (2001). Pedagogy for Revolution against Education for

Capital: An E-Dialogue on Education in Capitalism Today, Cultural Logic: AnElectronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice, Vol.4 No.1, at: http://eserver.org/

clogic/4-1/mclaren&rikowski.html

Murmann, Johann Peter (2003). Knowledge and Competitive Advantage, Cambridge: OUP.

North, Douglas C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance:

Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions, Cambridge: CUP.

Rikowski, Glenn (2002a). Prelude: Marxist Educational Theory After Postmodernism,

Dave Hill, Peter McLaren, Mike Cole, Glenn Rikowski (ed.), Marxism Against

Postmodernism in Educational Theory, Oxford: Lexington, pp. 15-32.

Rikowski, Glenn (2002b). Education, Capital and the Trans Human, Dave Hill, Peter

McLaren, Mike Cole, Glenn Rikowski (ed.), Marxism Against Postmoderninsm in

Educational Theory, Oxford: Lexington, pp. 111-143.

Sadgopal, Anil (2006). Privatisation of Education: An Agenda of the Global Market,

Combat Law, Vol. 5, Issue I, February-March, pp. 22-27.

Spence, Michael (1973). Job Market Signalling,The Quarterly Journal of Economics,

Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 355-374.

Tilak, Jandhyala B. G. (2004). Laissez-Faireism in Higher Education in India, in Kumar,

Arun (ed.), Challenges Facing Indian Universities: Collection of Papers Based on a

Seminar Organised by JNUTA on October 2, 2004 in Jawaharlal Nehru University,

JNUTA, New Delhi, pp 62-67.

Times of India, Delhi Times, (July 2, 2006), International Curriculum Produces Original

Thinkers. p 1.

Togliatti, Palmiro (1976). Lectures on Fascism, New York: International Publishers.

WTO, Council for Trade in Services (September 23, 1998), Education Services:

Background Note by the Secretariat, S/C/W/49, available at: http://www.esib.org/

commodification/documents/education_wto_backgroundpap.pdf

WTO, Trade in Services Division (October 1999), An Introduction to the GATS, available

at: http://www.esib.org/commodification/documents/introgatswto.pdf

i Pankaj Pachauri, Senior Editor, NDTV-India, shared this unpublished information in

his presentation at the Convention on OBC Reservation held at JNU organised by

JNUSU on May 25, 2006.

Documents

manish & chandan-edu-paper