SFS 2nd Conference

SFS 2nd Conference

Friday, April 18, 2014

PROTEST AGAINST FEE HIKE: LATHI-CHARGE AND POLITICS OF NEO-LIBERALISM


On 18th march, Chandigarh police lathi-charged protesting students to suppress their struggle against Fee hike. The Students were taken to PS sec. – 11 and were brutally tortured, for opposing the entry of police in University Campus. The police claiming to be responsible to maintain law and order, showed what ‘Law & order’ really means. Police while registering fake cases to suppress dissent, mocked the very constitution that claims the country to be the Worlds’ Largest Democracy.

The question is why university resorted to such measures instead of solving the issue? 
The whole matter was concerned with fee hike, against which SFS started a chain hunger strike since 24th February that was converted to indefinite hunger strike after no response from authorities. As the authorities tried to suppress the struggle, the struggle fueled by the students’ unity forced the authorities to bow.
The university authorities gave the argument that fee is hiked due to rising deficit. The central government will only give grant to university in case if they mobilize their resources themselves and hike at least 8-10% fees every year. Instead of opposing the government, university is increasing the load on the students by hiking their fees.Instead of making education a right, government is making it a commodity, and is running away from its responsibilities of ‘social welfare’.
To understand the whole issue let’s have a look at the education related policies:

The formal education system was introduced by Macaulay for creating a class of persons who are Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, opinion, morals and in intellect…to serve the interests of Britishers. Today also, our education system, in spite of liberating the masses from reactionary ideas and dominance, is continuing on the same lines. To understand the education policy in India “National Policy Of Education” (1986) is a turning point which supported the funding of the institutions by both public and private sector as well as ‘voluntary agencies’, thus paved the way for commercialization and privatization of education. It also proposed a ‘National Core Curriculum’ under which the rich diverse culture and languages of our people were sacrificed. NPE also purposed the banning of elections to further suppress the voice of dissent. Instead of universal education, the concept of ‘model’ schools was introduced which gave rise to the double standard education.


The 1990 Jomtien Conference paved the way for the World Bank and other international funding agencies to extend loans for India (and other countries) in primary education in India (including other countries) thus interfering with the future of children. Later in 1994, the World Bank document, ‘higher education: the lessons of experience’ (1994), which purposed the concept of ‘cost recovery’ for universities and colleges and resource mobilization by other methods. This was seen in Swaminathan Committee in very cheap form like maintenance fee, gardening fee, lending of premises of the institutions such as auditorium, class rooms, playgrounds etc. The very next year, for school education DPEP (District Primary Education Programme) was introduced by government, which was funded by World Bank. In this way government started reducing its responsibility from the school education.

Notwithstanding in 1999, the Anand Krishnan committee and Mehmood-ur-Rehman committee proposed 5 to 6 fold fee hikes and illogically justified it saying “higher fees gives sobriety to the system and to the institutions and is also helpful in maintaining law and order”. While on the other hand, somewhat ‘sincere’ recommendation of Kothari commission, which urged the govt. to invest 6% of the GDP in education, was completely ignored. Market-friendly courses were introduced and private investment was allowed in these courses. The private colleges and even universities funded by big corporate were started. The NDA government also manipulated the subject matters especially history in the name ‘Bhartiyakaran’ of the education, defeating the very purpose of the scientific and rational education.

In Ambani-Birla report (2000), these two industrialists asked for immediate privatization of several segments of higher education. In view of this they wanted a legislation “banning any form of political activity on campuses of universities and educational institutions”. In its continuity, the Lyngdoh Committee also recommended harsh restrictions on political activities in educational campuses as it was necessary to create an ‘open environment’ that would encourage the private sector to invest in higher education as the World Bank in 2002 suggested in its report “Constructing Knowledge Societies”. It suggested that such rules should be formed that facilitate establishment of new institutions, outlining minimum quality requirements and did not constitute any barriers to entry for investment for private investors. Later in 2005, UPA governments’ commerce ministry under the pressure of WTO under GATS, recommended that “service negotiations could be used as an opportunity to invite foreign universities to set up campuses in India, thereby saving billions of dollars for the students travelling abroad”. Thereby removing barriers and providing flexible environment to such universities for investment.
It has introduced six education related bills stressing for centralization of all aspects of higher education (With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutes will find it easier to start their ‘shops’ in India), promoting FDI in education, setting up an alternative dispute redressal mechanism giving an easy way-out to private universities , mandatory accreditation of all educational institutes creating National Authority for Registration and Accreditation of Higher Educational Institutes (NARAHEI). Under Universities for Innovation and Research Bill, the universities will be started under MoAs, with govt. arranging lands, contribution to capital investment, grants for supporting research but afterwards these universities will be outside the jurisdiction of CAG, there will be no member of govt. in board of governors and therefore no control over these universities. Higher and primary education is juxtaposed against each other in an ugly manner.
Such reforms are seriously affecting the society as now even the middle class is being denied the opportunities for education due to rising costs under policies of the privatization and commercialization of education. The oppressed section such as dalits and scheduled tribes, who earlier have been somewhat benefited from the reservation, are again being marginalized due to the increased costs of education. Either the educational institutions have been privatized or only the self-financed courses are being introduced in the public institutions. Less than 3% of GDP is spent on education in contrast to 10% as recommended by Yashpal committee. In 2013-14 budget total of Rs. 65,867 crore was allotted to education sector, whereas in the name of reducing fiscal deficit (under pressure from international rating agencies) the expenses were reduced by 18% but this year government distributed packages worth Rs. 25,000 crore to corporates, and this is a minute part of subsidies being given to corporates.

As we go deep down to further understand the education related policies, a rather questionable picture comes forward. On one side in a simple manner, the solution of every problem is sought through the expanse of education whereas on the other side government policies are making education a commodity, thereby making it out of reach of the majority of the people. Even today when the election fever is running throughout the country, all the political parties are trying to woo the voters and crores of rupees are being spent on propaganda activities building air castles of future development. These basic questions are deliberately being ignored or are just being discussed at a very surficial level. The participation of people in the democracy and decision making is limited to just casting vote once every five years, to choose among the lotus, hand, balance, broom, elephant etc. When we look at the economic policies of all these, we see no major difference among them rather all seem to unite at the neo-liberal model of development standing up for measures for further privatization which are further guided by the international agencies such as World Bank. Narendra Modi who very loudly proclaims to be a nationalist has hired APCO (a US based corporation responsible for fake propaganda justifying the US imperialist attack on the Iraq) for his election propaganda. Even AAP which is projecting itself as an alternative, is in essence nothing but continuation of the same neo-liberal agenda which has put the Indian economy in such a drastic situation. All the parties under the garb of ‘good governance’, instead of basing its policies for social welfare, are opening way for the further privatization.

Especially, today when the world economy is trapped in crisis, international financial institutions are trying to get themselves out of this crisis. In such a scenario, we generally witness more cuts in the subsidies and lessening of expenditure on schemes of public welfare and more burden is put upon already distressed people. As history teaches us, fascism rises in such conditions to suppress any dissenting or resisting voice of the people. The present elections in our country are also a projection of such scenario where without much discussion on policies and basic questions, two or three individuals are being projected as some ‘saviours’ who with their magical wands would save the country.


Friends in such a situation it amply becomes clear that the real alternative lies in the path shown by our legendary revolutionary leaders such as Bhagat Singh, who teach us to struggle against the rotten socio-economic and political structure as a whole which is responsible for the pauperization of masses and lay foundations for such a society where there would be freedom and opportunities for all to develop one’s self and environment. The recent struggle against the fee hike gives us lesson that the imperialist attack on our education and society could only be resisted by our united struggle against the reactionary Indian State.