Masses or the Market?

“Cost-Cutting” in Indian Education Policy and its “Non-Didactic” Effects on Education Spaces

Introduction

Recently, I had the chance to listen to the lectures of Anil Sadgopal (1) in which he speaks of a “neoliberal assault on Indian education policy” making and its implementation post 1991. In these lectures, he discusses education as envisaged by the makers of the Indian constitution; various programs launched by the Indian government in the realm of education post 1991; how the involvement of World Bank in such education programs shifted the focus of education policy makers away from quality inclusive education and, how, “cost-cutting” has deeply hurt the quality of these programs.

In this article, I wish to look at some of the “non-didactic” effects that such policy implementation can have.

Phule and the “Non-Didactic”

Before I go on to further focus on Sadgopal’s critique, I would like to take a moment to focus on Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule as thinkers who did pioneering work for inclusive education. As R. Indra (2) points out, Phule’s ideas of education rest strongly on the pillars of universal inclusion for social change. Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule both emerged as pioneers of making education inclusive by opening schools for girls, children from oppressed castes and starting many other institutes that aimed to bring marginalized sections access to education. While this article cannot go over their complete contributions to universally inclusive education, I would like to bring two specific “measures” that is of interest to me.

R. Indra points out how Savitribai Phule used to:

- pay stipends to children in order to prevent drop outs.

- Phule is also popular for conducting parent-teacher meetings in order to spread awareness about the importance of education.

These are important practices when inclusive education is envisaged. Why? Because these practices bring to light the importance of the conversation that needs to happen within the non-didactic realm in order to make education truly inclusive. Phule understood that education, especially in a socioeconomically unequal world, needs to address these non-didactic influences — lack of money and social representation — in order for the didactic educative interaction to thrive and sustain itself. In other words, Phule understood that what is happening outside the classroom is equally, if not more, important than what is inside the classroom. Hence, Phule’s understanding of education as a holistic process of social transformation, which rests on awareness and inclusion, is key to her work and her thought.

Neoliberal Policy Agendas and the “Non-Didactic”

In sheer contrast to such stipend payment and community engagement, the neoliberal policy implementation seems to completely disregard the nondidactic world around education. As Sadgopal points out, policy implementation under neoliberal influences makes glaring compromises in terms of the quality of education, the educators and educational spaces. Although I cannot outline a complete list of what Sadgopal talks of, I would like to present here a (paraphrased) segment from his lecture:

“ This neoliberal obsession with cost cutting has reached such a peak in certain instances that they no longer want to even invest in a teacher or a school space. Open Learning is becoming very popular. No teacher, no classroom. A post-man delivers a bunch of books to a house in a village and that is supposed to be the primary education that Indian students receive. The kids in these rural houses cannot read these books by themselves, even their parents cannot read these books, hell even the sarpanch of the village cannot read these books. In their desire to cut costs, neoliberals have replaced the teacher with a post-man.

However, there is an issue of gender at play here that I want to point out as well. When we think of a school space in a village, we can imagine that the girls in these rural societies would at least get the chance to escape the patriarchal bounds of their homes, even if temporarily. For a mere four-five hours, she can escape the confines of her house and go to a free, community space where she can play, sing, laugh and learn to express herself. That is the freedom that a school space offered her.

But now, with your efficient world bank cost cutting and haphazard open schooling, you have snatched even that freedom from such girl children”

The picture that Sadgopal paints is in such a dystopic contrast to the empowering vision that Phule practiced and preached in her times. While the neoliberal policies look at primary education as just another box to be ticked off, and disregard the non-didactic world surrounding this “box”, Phule’s practices seem to take a direct dive into the non-didactic world surrounding us. In other words, while thinkers like Phule thought of education should exist for the masses, the neoliberal education agenda seems to believe that the masses exist for the education market.

Conclusion

While this article could not go over a comprehensive, detailed outlook of education policy in India post 1991, I hope that it brought forth the contrast between the idea of education as a social change and the idea of education as a market. Thinkers such as the Phules, and their institutions and practices seem to provide us with a rich collection of how to understand the nondidactic world that makes or breaks a nation’s education landscape. The Phule’s work, when viewed from a retrospective point and in comparison with the neoliberal education agenda, further compels us to discard the view of education as a market and asks us to think of it as a holistic, social process of change.


Sources

1. Neoliberal Assault on Education Policy (Anil Sadgopal) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfLZCi4X38s

2. Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule (R.Indra) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5YcCHvGNtM&feature=youtu.be