Tag: Knowledge

  • An Education Policy for Colonising Minds

    An Education Policy for Colonising Minds

    Imperialist hegemony over the third world is exercised not just through arms and economic might but also through the hegemony of ideas by making the victims see the world the way imperialism wants them to see it. A pre-requisite for freedom in the third world, therefore, is to shake off this colonisation of the mind, and to seek truth beyond the distortions of imperialism. The anti-colonial struggle was aware of this; in fact, the struggle begins with the dawning of this awareness. And since the imperialist project does not come to an end with formal political decolonisation, the education system in the newly independent ex-colonies must continuously aim to go beyond the falsehoods of imperialism.

    This requires that the course contents and syllabi in Indian educational institutions must be different from those in metropolitan institutions. This is obvious in the case of humanities and social sciences, where it is impossible to understand the present of the country without reckoning with its colonised past; and metropolitan universities scrupulously avoid making this connection, attributing the current state of underdevelopment of the country to all sorts of extraneous factors like laziness, lack of enterprise, superstition, and, above all, excessive population growth. But even in the case of natural sciences, the syllabi and course contents in third-world universities cannot be identical with those in metropolitan universities, not because Einstein’s theory or quantum physics have any imperialist ideology in them, but because the range of scientific concerns in the third world is not necessarily the same as in the metropolitan countries. In fact, this was the view of JD Bernal, the British scientist and Marxist intellectual, one of the great figures of the twentieth century.

    To believe that the syllabi and course contents in third-world universities should be identical to those in metropolitan universities is itself a symptom of being hegemonised by imperialism. Education policy in the dirigiste period in India was aware of this; despite the obvious failings of the education system the education policy of that period could not be faulted for having a wrong vision.

    With neo-liberalism, however, things begin to change, as the Indian big bourgeoisie gets integrated with globalised finance capital, as the Indian upper middle-class youth looks for employment in multinational corporations, as the nation’s development is made dependent upon exporting goods to foreign markets and attracting foreign finance and foreign direct investment to the country. Significantly, even top functionaries of the government started talking about reinviting the East India Company back to India.

    Since the era of neo-liberalism entails the hegemony of globalised finance capital, and since this capital requires a globalised (or at least a homogeneous) technocracy, the emphasis shifts to having a homogeneous education system internationally to train such a technocracy; and obviously such a system necessarily has to be one that emanates from the metropolis.

    This means an education system not for decolonising minds but for recolonising minds. To this end, the UPA government earlier had invited several well-known foreign universities to set up branches in India and even to “adopt’ some Indian universities that could be developed in their own image. Oxford, Harvard, and Cambridge were obviously invited under this scheme not to follow the syllabi and course contents prepared within India but to replicate what they followed back home. The idea was to start a process whereby there would be a uniformity of course contents and syllabi between the Indian and metropolitan universities, that is, to roll back the attempt made earlier towards decolonisation of minds in Indian universities. In fact, an Indian Human Resource Development minister had openly stated in parliament that his objective was to provide a Harvard education in India so that Indian students would not have to go abroad for it.

    The NDA government has carried forward to a very great extent what the UPA government had started; and the National Education Policy it has enacted gives an official imprimatur to this idea of a uniform education system between India and the metropolis, which necessarily means the adoption of common curricula, course contents and syllabi between Indian and metropolitan universities.

    Towards this uniformity, it has taken two decisive steps: one is the destruction of those universities in India that were providing a counter to the imperialist discourse and that had, for this very reason, attracted worldwide attention; the obvious examples here are the Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Hyderabad Central University, Jadavpur University, and others.

    The other is the carrying out of negotiations under the pressure of the University Grants Commission between individual Indian universities and foreign universities to make the course contents in various disciplines in the former clones of those in the latter. The only caveat here is that the UGC insists on having some material on subjects like Vedic Mathematics included in the course contents of Indian universities, which the foreign universities do not always agree with.

    No doubt, some accord will be reached on these issues in due course, in which case the Indian universities would have curricula and course contents that represent an admixture of the demands of neo-liberalism and the demands of the Hindutva elements. It would be a colonisation of minds with a veneer of “how great our country was in ancient times”. Imperialism should not have any problem with that. As long as imperialism, which is a modern phenomenon that has emerged with the development of capitalism, is painted not as an exploitative system but as a benevolent civilising mission for countries like India, as long as the present state of underdevelopment of these countries is not in any way linked to the phenomenon of imperialism, which it would not be if there is uniformity of course contents with metropolitan universities, then what had happened in ancient times is not of much concern to imperialism, at least to the liberal imperialist viewpoint, as distinct from the extreme right which favours a white supremacist discourse.

    An alternative tendency with the same consequence of recolonising minds is to do away with the social sciences and humanities altogether or to reduce them to inconsequential subjects and substitute them with courses that are exclusively “job-oriented” and do not ask questions about society, like management and cost accountancy. In fact, both the Hindutva elements and the corporates have a vested interest in this since both are keen to have students who are exclusively self-centred and do not ask questions about the trajectory of social development. This tendency, too, is gathering momentum at present.

    An education system that recolonises minds is the counterpart of the corporate-Hindutva alliance that has acquired political hegemony in the country. Such a recolonisation is what the corporates want; and the Hindutva elements that were never associated with the anti-colonial struggle, that never understood the meaning of nation-building, that do not understand the role and significance of imperialism, and hence of the need for decolonising minds, are quite content as long as lip service is paid to the greatness of ancient India. An education system that purveys the imperialist ideology with some Vedic seasoning is good enough for them. This is exactly the education system that the country is now in the process of building.

    The corporate- Hindutva alliance, however, is a response to the crisis of neo-liberalism, when corporate capital feels the need to ally itself with the Hindutva elements to maintain its hegemony in the face of the crisis. The National Education Policy likewise is not for carrying the nation forward but for managing the crisis by destroying thought and preventing people from asking questions and seeking the truth. The “job orientation” that this policy prides itself on is only for a handful of persons; in fact, the crisis of neo-liberalism means fewer jobs overall. In sync with this, the education system excludes large numbers of persons; their minds are to be filled instead with communal poison within an altered discourse that bypasses issues of material life and makes them potential low-wage recruits for fascistic thug-squads.

    This education policy, therefore, can only be transitory until the youth starts asking questions about the unemployment and distress that has become its fate. And as an alternative development trajectory beyond neo-liberal capitalism is explored, the quest for an education system beyond what the NDA government is seeking to introduce will also begin; and decolonisation of the mind will again come onto the agenda, as it had done during the anti-colonial struggle.

     

    This article was published earlier in People’s Democracy.

  • Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the edge of the 21st Century

    Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the edge of the 21st Century

    Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the edge of the 21st Century” by Alvin Toffler, Bantam Books, 1990. New York

    Alvin Toffler

    Last book of the trilogy, ‘Powershift’ published in the 1990s still continues to be an impressive intellectual handbook to understand the transformation of power in a rapidly evolving technological, economic, and social environment. Toffler argues the nature of power in any epoch is determined by knowledge, wealth and violence. By acknowledging the inevitable emergence of new age knowledge economy, Toffler sets to describe the set of changes in the power dynamics at the turn of the 21st century. A gradual shift in power succeeds with knowledge through control of information in a super symbolic economy. Post third wave of industrialization, smoke stack industries would be replaced by decentralized industries with technology and information playing critical roles. China in the past few decades has designed its economy based on knowledge and gained technological sovereignty in Asia threatening the West’s global dominance. He asserts the pattern of powershift in politics, economics and business would be integrated and the hierarchy of power would get dissolved. A mosaic of power structure would emerge, ‘demassyifying’ production that determines the future of an economy. Recent developments in 3D printing, artificial intelligence etc have changed the paradigm of manufacturing – the country investing and comprehending the impact of innovation and disruptive technologies would gain economic superiority. By providing substantial case studies and thorough qualitative analysis, the futurist predicts millennials to redefine the defence for democracy with technology, information and knowledge. There exists a conspicuous relationship between power, wealth and knowledge since the beginning of the industrial revolution. While power has traditionally been symbolised by brute military power and economic power until the end of the world wars, the post 1945 transformation of power is contained in a triangle of military power, economic power, and knowledge (science and technology) power, Knowledge has now transformed the very notion and effectiveness of power. Power structure in the 21st century, according to the writer, will be redefined by knowledge.

    Power Shift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the edge of the 21st Century

    Violence and wealth function as important tools to consolidate power – politicians, bureaucrats and business people have always used violence & wealth to move up the hierarchy. Changing levels of technology and innovation has advanced knowledge to be a source of high quality power. Toffler firmly argued that power shift era will not be about competing nations or institutions for power, rather the dynamics between violence, wealth and knowledge would be the most intimidating transformation of power. Twenty odd years later it is clear that his analysis is spot on. An important note has been made on three key factors that bolster power accumulation – military, economic and technological power. Any country claiming superiority over these three could garner superpower status. Testing this hypothesis in the case of scandanavian countries proves that despite achieving superior economic and technological capabilities these countries could never realise great power status due to lack of strong military power. Toffler highlights, however, that the nature of military power now symbolises the critical influence of knowledge power. Tofflers’ concepts, also echoed by Joseph Nye as ‘smart power’ (combination of soft and hard power), justifies the end of the Cold-War era power struggle. Political values, culture and foreign policy were fundamental for soft power, traditional marxist and liberals considered economic might to be foundational to soft power. Global power centre of gravity shifting from west to east at the turn of the 21st century is a reflection of not just the rise of Asia but also the transformation of power and hence, the powershift. China’s ambitious Belt and Road initiative aims to consolidate its economic power within the western framework and then transform it. Undoubtedly, power transformation across the region and within a country is an outcome of increasing control of and access to advanced technology. A successful super symbolic economy would operate only in a country which manages to maintain monopoly of knowledge for a brief time frame until the knowledge can be commercialized to boost the economy further.Toffler has made assumptions by partially ignoring the role of domestic government structure in accumulating wealth by gaining access to control of knowledge. The inextricable link between local framework in materializing as an influential player in the global market cannot be ignored. Toffler’s following statement rings even more relevant today than ever before – “Knowledge itself … turns out to be not only the source of the highest-quality power, but also the most important ingredient of force and wealth. Put differently, knowledge has gone from being an adjunct of money power and muscle power, to being their very essence. It is, in fact, the ultimate amplifier. This is the key to the powershift that lies ahead, and it explains why the battle for control of knowledge and the means of communication is heating up all over the world.” By using the term knowledge liberally, author assumes a fluidity in defining knowledge as a tool in the era of powershift. Beyond logical thinking, knowledge is related to the ability of learning, unlearning and relearning. Any information and data can be reproduced with value as a product of passion and innovation. India at this juncture must position herself to strategically become a strong emerging power in a multi polar world. Counter balancing China’s growth in Asia, India has to permeate the knowledge economy by investing in technology and innovation. It might be fallacious to idealize China’s path, but it is critical to recognise the changing dynamics of knowledge in the current world order. An exhilarating text presenting an inspiring account of the future which we currently live in. The book remains germane as we experience knowledge of technology shaping the power structure and reiterates the dictum ‘knowledge is power’.