Abstract
Universities in India, being a subsystem of larger social structure, reflect the reality of society. Increasing conflict and violence is becoming a new phenomenon due to emerging socio, economic and political forces. When society confronts injustices in a liberal democratic set-up, ideological state apparatus may become active to hide the injustices and even to perpetuate the injustice through control. State becomes an ally and benefactor of a person, group and community in lieu of the support from them. State may perpetuate divisions, suppress some voices, create confusion for the benefit of the existence of the people who are in charge of it. Some of the most sensitive issues such as religion, nationhood and security may be used to satisfy some while provoke others. The evolution of state in post-independence phase from a welfare and developmental agenda to some sort of cultural agenda is indeed interesting and full of complex questions.
What follows from above is the fact that universities, in its pure and pristine form, an ideal form is not likely to exist. It is subjected to influences from outside, as it also affects outside. The outside influences may, sometimes, be favourable or unfavourable to achieving the mission of university. Thus, university works with relative autonomy—academia enjoying more or less—in different time periods. Sometimes, some universities or institutes enjoy more autonomy, while some others less. Outside influences may originate from factors which may be economic, political or social. The role of ideology may play an important role as communicative force of action is guided by some belief system or other. It is under these circumstances of ideology rather than rationality that it may be difficult to come to a conclusion due to the prevalence of subjectivities. The objectivity, attempt to come to a conclusion through rational communication, is lost. In this situation conflict is inevitable. State may exercise control through manipulation. How does democracy then survive and how should education support democracy? These are important questions.
The motivation of Sushree Panigrahi in the book Ideology, Conflict and State Control in Higher Education: A Sociological Analysis is to understand how outside phenomena influences the minds of important stakeholders of higher education: students and teachers. How do they view the role of education in creating democratic society in substance rather than form? In the words of author, ‘The core purpose of this book is to locate the role of ideology in everyday life, especially that of students and teachers’ (p. 2). Further, the author claims ‘to understand the sociological forces that shape ideology …( p. 2) Although the author claims that the book moves away from a discussion on political ideology, in my opinion, the analytical strength of the book derives from the perspective of political sociology as state control and is one of the main themes of the book. The important question is how far from the ideology is the determining factor in understanding the ‘crisis’ of higher education?
The book in the introductory chapter presents evidences of conflicts and control in higher education institutions. It presents a literature review on the conceptualisation of the universities as spaces of socialisation and social control. Functionalist role of university is also examined. It is further seen as promoting democracy. In its role as promoting democracy, it is very much a political entity in which ideology, conflict and state control plays an important role. No doubt, importance of the book flows from the fact that it engages with contemporary situation—ideological battles, conflict and control of the state to settle them in its favour, thereby taking away autonomy from the hands of academia and disturbing the autonomous knowledge generation process.
Chapter 2 of the book discusses the concept of ideology, how students view ideology and how state manipulates some ideologies? However, there is an important logical question on ideology that needs to be clarified. Is ideology independent or dependent on various social and economic variables? If it is dependent on material or social forces, then why not explain the crisis in higher education by means of material or social forces rather than ideology. The author takes a stand that ideology is an independent variable to explain the existing scenario in higher education, but then it should be stated and proved. Indeed, Gramsci, a post Marxist, takes the position that ideology is independent and as author quotes Gramsci ‘its original meaning was that of science of ideas … analysis of ideas’ (p. 47). The importance of ideology is also noted by Gramsci in terms of creating consciousness and organising people. Indeed, a number of scholars take ideology as set of practices, structures or method which makes meaning. Ideology can distort or illuminate the nature of reality. When the author wants to understand definition of ideology from the student, it is not a clear, systematic and structured understanding that she gets, yet she believes that it plays a role in shaping higher education. If such is the case then ideology as causal factor, an explanatory variable, only exists in the mind of author. Subjective understanding is objectified by the author. Author’s analysis of ideas shows that ‘universities represent all that ails our societies’ (p. 99)
Chapter 3 is on political activism and students’ union. Author refers to a paradox. Students were considered an important force in nation building during freedom struggle and in post-independence period. However, the narrative today is different. Administration and even teachers consider that students should remain apolitical and pursue their academic career. Students’ role is limited to the students’ facilities and their grievances—academic and administrative. Students are not supposed to oppose government policy as it would amount to indulging in politics and perhaps it would be anti-national. Hence student’s political activism needs to be discouraged. Further, instances are given that influence of political party in students union election led to violence and corruption. Hence student’s role in political activism needs to be curbed. Students’ view on this matter were found to be contradictory during field visit. However, one thing is clear. Whereas in a liberal democratic framework, scholars view student’s political role as important, yet the existing scenario seems to be away from it. This reflects the disillusionment and dissatisfaction from politics. Author makes an interesting observation: ‘This, in turn, gives the state a chance to wield control over the universities, as resistance and dissent do not find active supporters’ (p. 138).
Chapter 4 is on entrenched hierarchies of caste and gender. Do educational institutions help to reduce hierarchies on account of caste and gender? Or do they mirror the society and perpetuate the hierarchies? Field report suggests that gendered hostel rules exist and protests against them fail. Dress code for girls is followed in some institution. Caste representation among teachers is highly uneven. Roster system had been partly responsible for it. So far as students are concerned the predominance of first-generation learners pose challenges and institutions are far away from solving it due to the callous attitude of authorities. Overall teachers suffer from delayed promotion.
Chapter 5 on issues in higher education presents a brief historical account and raises the issue of fee hike that led to protests in many universities. Incident of JNU is noteworthy in this regard. It led to protests and some roll back in fees. However, many engineering institutes have seen steady increase in fees. It was almost an all-India phenomenon. The mushrooming of private institutions was also of concern for the teachers. It is important to note, the author points out, as per CAG report of February 2019 ‘that Rs. 94036 crore of the secondary and higher education cess and Rs. 7298 crore from research and development cess remained unutilized’ (p.197). Protests on all of the above issues is hardly heard. Debates on employability and quality and quality control are raised. Field report notes various manifestations of crisis in higher education. The list is large. However, political interference is prominent. Government appoints Vice Chancellors, and they obey the orders coming from the government. Another issue is the lack of permanent teachers and reliance on guest/ad-hoc lecturers. The chapter sums up issues that teachers feel important.
Chapter 6 attempts to understand teachers’ ideological role and its impact. An important observation through the field report is that there is a hierarchical relation between the teacher and the taught. The hierarchy makes the learners passive recipient of knowledge. This creates problems for the growth of knowledge as students hesitate to ask questions. It stops critical thinking among students. As a result, students as citizens fail to participate in democratic functioning as they all tend to follow status quo. Other issues raised by teachers were delay in the recruitment and promotion of teachers. Appointment of guest/ad-hoc teachers weaken the democratic functioning of the university as they do not have representation in academic bodies of the university or college. Besides, being in temporary position, it is easier to control them. Favour given in the recruitment of teachers is another disease of the higher education system. The appointments made in JNU in the last two years on political affiliation with the party in power was also mentioned during the field visit. They also do not get other benefits as employees of the institution. Academic freedom for large number of teachers do not make any sense under the heavy rule determined system. The threat of biometric attendance also ceases the academic freedom of teachers. The drastic seat cut in PhD programme, lack of funding for research, preferential treatment of ISSER over universities, cut back on scholarship, enforcing of CCS, manipulation of the decisions were issues of grave concern in the minds of teachers.
To sum up the arguments advanced by the author in the book, universities in India face the threat of democratic functioning. It means universities face political interference from outside. Students are patronised from those in state power. There is a weakening of the protest from students and teachers on unjust rules and policies of the government. Author takes a position that universities cannot be apolitical as politics is necessary for change. Anything that weakens the critical thinking weakens the path of progress and change. Hence, the lesson from the book is that ideology has also an important role. Conflict of ideology so long as it promotes questioning is desirable. However, no authoritarian state likes the voice of protest. Hence, it begins to dictate the university through rules, interference, influencing the decision makers, etc.
In my assessment of the book, author raises important issues of ideology, conflict and power that affect the functioning of universities. The author also asks whether education promotes democracy in terms of its ideals of liberty and equality. However, it is difficult to provide clear cut answers. The book makes an attempt to understand the force of ideology, yet, I believe, it is difficult to present ideology as a causal factor to understand the present crisis. In my opinion, structural factors that shape the ideology need to be understood. By structural factors, I mean the material and social forces that build the agenda of development. Universities in India are governed by that developmental agenda which, at present, is guided by market forces and rules and regulations that support market principles. Hence the structural dynamics of development has to be fully understood in terms of policies and programmes. However, I would like to recommend the book as it aids in understanding the role of ideology in shaping the directions of higher education. It warns that politics and ideology manipulation by the state is not right for the future of democracy.
