PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 1994 ID-39126
.
.
~ .
-.,. .
.
' .
.
-.
Democratic Students Union (DSU) .
Students for Campus Development .
Students' Solidarity .
.
Reclaim the campus. .
Fight against corporatisation and privatisation of education .
and the shrinking democratic space in campus and out. .
.
The policies of liberahsation, pnvausation and globaltsation have crepr into uni:ersities in r!le !;):-:-!: of ror-;,ora::t: tundmg oi the campus spaces be 1t m education or :nfrastructure. Increasing~~·, learning .s tak~g a oa.c:: sc~: .:r..C universtty is becoming mvestor fnendly to cater to the needs of rhe market. 11ore and more act?.dem:c ?rc~.🅰:::"::es on the campu5 are being funded by rhe Likes of Ford Foundauon. The fact is, there is an ever-increas~~g anack oa students through increasing cost of education (including the cost of L·,ing in :he campus), and oriem:i.'1g academics cowards pnvare, uuernauonal capital, rather than the need of of students and society at large. T n:.s is !:a?pemng lil tandem with Lhe new economic pohcies, Implemented by successive governmen:s -Congres..:>, ~n_.;., CPA and their allies. In JtS policy documents the lrtdian state is positmg education as a conunodiry ot men:, available to a few, the resultant knowledge ro be sold to the highest bidder. Naturally, even primary ,education 15 denied to a vast .
popularion. Out of the total enrollment in primary education, only 6% manage to get imo higher education. Of course, even this 6°A1 is a huge market taking into consrderation the population der...siry of a co.... mrr;: like India. And the race is on to capture this higher education marker. .
Ic is unfortunate that this gross abdication of rhe responsibilty of the State from higher educario.r. and the resultant entry of international funding agencies have been accepted uncritically m this campus. The Global Studies Programme in the CSSS/SSS is a Sl~rding example of this growing insensitivity to the legitimisation or corporate funding in campus programmes. While the university authorities are clever enough to ?roject i~ as only a programme of exchange berween two Gennan universities and ]NU it is never declared to the student commur..:ty that this progran11ne is also promoted by such international management consultanc-y groups like 11cKinsey and the corporate giants like BMW. Neither of these organisations have ever been accu.ssed of being pro-people, or prioritising the Lnterest of people or society over profits, McKinsey is one of the global 'experts' in implementing .
.
the policies of globalisation and liberalisation. In India, they are advising the Maharashrra government as well as the Left (stc!) Front government in West Bengal on economic and social policies. (One of their more visible successes is the large-scale displacement and m.ass destitution through slum demolition in the name of city beautification.) The studied silence and intransparency of the JNU authorities about these funders and their practices speaks volumes about the shrinking democratic space in our campus. .
Another aspect of corporatisarion and privatisarion of education here is the replication oi disciplines, provided it it pernuts the unhindered entry of corporate capital. So when a Centre for PoLttcal StLdies ts already there we also have a Centre for Law and Governance funded by Ford which deals with topics which can very well come under the purview of rhe former. Similarly we have a Centre for International Trade and Development m SIS funded by Ford while we also have Centre for Economic Studies & Planning. It is not surprising that these parellel centres and programmes also have a different (in other words, exorbitant) fee structures. .
In a clever sleight of hand, one onslaught is used to justify another. Tthe entry of corporate funding is legitimised by the logic of subsidy cuts by the State in higher education. Scholarships are getting fev.·er and more inaccessible for most students. Even the scholarships meant for students from weaker, underprivileged .
backgorounds are not being withdrawn. More and more students enrolling for research are forced to be part of the by donor agencies like Ford, Rockefeller etc..
projects run by their faculty. Most of these projects are funded .
Students have lirrle choice in dec1ding d1e areas of research. Most of the studems end up doing research, which .
meets the needs of the project undertaken by the faculty. Research gets reduced to projects. Learning gets reduced .
to coliection of data. Data that is later utilised elsewhere, at the behest of corporate and imperialist interests, to be .
recycled as conceptual tools or policy initiatives. The university is becomic an academic sweatshop. N ot .
surprisingly, when one's academic life depends on consenting to these corporate demands, critical thinking or .
dissent becomes a very risky proposition. We are taught ro self-censor, to assim.ilate globalisation and liberalisacion .
in our classrooms. .
The JNU administration last year decided that the rule ena~ted by the University lll 1972 preventing the .
faculty from taking honorarium in thc projects tl1ey head should be removed. At the outset it looks very innocous, .
.
~ .
.
../ .
.
l .
.
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 1994 ID-39126
.
.
~ .
-.,. .
.
' .
.
-.
Democratic Students Union (DSU) .
Students for Campus Development .
Students' Solidarity .
.
Reclaim the campus. .
Fight against corporatisation and privatisation of education .
and the shrinking democratic space in campus and out. .
.
The policies of liberahsation, pnvausation and globaltsation have crepr into uni:ersities in r!le !;):-:-!: of ror-;,ora::t: tundmg oi the campus spaces be 1t m education or :nfrastructure. Increasing~~·, learning .s tak~g a oa.c:: sc~: .:r..C universtty is becoming mvestor fnendly to cater to the needs of rhe market. 11ore and more act?.dem:c ?rc~.🅰:::"::es on the campu5 are being funded by rhe Likes of Ford Foundauon. The fact is, there is an ever-increas~~g anack oa students through increasing cost of education (including the cost of L·,ing in :he campus), and oriem:i.'1g academics cowards pnvare, uuernauonal capital, rather than the need of of students and society at large. T n:.s is !:a?pemng lil tandem with Lhe new economic pohcies, Implemented by successive governmen:s -Congres..:>, ~n_.;., CPA and their allies. In JtS policy documents the lrtdian state is positmg education as a conunodiry ot men:, available to a few, the resultant knowledge ro be sold to the highest bidder. Naturally, even primary ,education 15 denied to a vast .
popularion. Out of the total enrollment in primary education, only 6% manage to get imo higher education. Of course, even this 6°A1 is a huge market taking into consrderation the population der...siry of a co.... mrr;: like India. And the race is on to capture this higher education marker. .
Ic is unfortunate that this gross abdication of rhe responsibilty of the State from higher educario.r. and the resultant entry of international funding agencies have been accepted uncritically m this campus. The Global Studies Programme in the CSSS/SSS is a Sl~rding example of this growing insensitivity to the legitimisation or corporate funding in campus programmes. While the university authorities are clever enough to ?roject i~ as only a programme of exchange berween two Gennan universities and ]NU it is never declared to the student commur..:ty that this progran11ne is also promoted by such international management consultanc-y groups like 11cKinsey and the corporate giants like BMW. Neither of these organisations have ever been accu.ssed of being pro-people, or prioritising the Lnterest of people or society over profits, McKinsey is one of the global 'experts' in implementing .
.
the policies of globalisation and liberalisation. In India, they are advising the Maharashrra government as well as the Left (stc!) Front government in West Bengal on economic and social policies. (One of their more visible successes is the large-scale displacement and m.ass destitution through slum demolition in the name of city beautification.) The studied silence and intransparency of the JNU authorities about these funders and their practices speaks volumes about the shrinking democratic space in our campus. .
Another aspect of corporatisarion and privatisarion of education here is the replication oi disciplines, provided it it pernuts the unhindered entry of corporate capital. So when a Centre for PoLttcal StLdies ts already there we also have a Centre for Law and Governance funded by Ford which deals with topics which can very well come under the purview of rhe former. Similarly we have a Centre for International Trade and Development m SIS funded by Ford while we also have Centre for Economic Studies & Planning. It is not surprising that these parellel centres and programmes also have a different (in other words, exorbitant) fee structures. .
In a clever sleight of hand, one onslaught is used to justify another. Tthe entry of corporate funding is legitimised by the logic of subsidy cuts by the State in higher education. Scholarships are getting fev.·er and more inaccessible for most students. Even the scholarships meant for students from weaker, underprivileged .
backgorounds are not being withdrawn. More and more students enrolling for research are forced to be part of the by donor agencies like Ford, Rockefeller etc..
projects run by their faculty. Most of these projects are funded .
Students have lirrle choice in dec1ding d1e areas of research. Most of the studems end up doing research, which .
meets the needs of the project undertaken by the faculty. Research gets reduced to projects. Learning gets reduced .
to coliection of data. Data that is later utilised elsewhere, at the behest of corporate and imperialist interests, to be .
recycled as conceptual tools or policy initiatives. The university is becomic an academic sweatshop. N ot .
surprisingly, when one's academic life depends on consenting to these corporate demands, critical thinking or .
dissent becomes a very risky proposition. We are taught ro self-censor, to assim.ilate globalisation and liberalisacion .
in our classrooms. .
The JNU administration last year decided that the rule ena~ted by the University lll 1972 preventing the .
faculty from taking honorarium in thc projects tl1ey head should be removed. At the outset it looks very innocous, .
.
~ .
.
../ .
.
l .
.
.
.