|
|
|
Feature
|
|
Media
|
|
Nehru
is Out,
Nehru is in: Media response to Narayan speech |
|
Culture/History
|
|
Notions
of Nation
Gandhi's India versus Godse's India |
|
Reviews
|
|
Bazaar
|
|
Archives
|
September 1998, first issue
Teachers on Warpath in India
Badri Raina
Department of English, Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi
The fact that the long-overdue Pay Revision for College and University teachers in India should effectively still not have taken place (since the teaching community throughout the country has with one voice rejected the notification issued by the Central Government) even as most other sections of employees receive the benefits of the Vth Pay Commission is, of course, in itself a matter of grave concern. The indignity, relegation and material (including professional) hardships suffered by teachers are all too real, however superficial might be the notions that the bureaucracy and other ill-informed segments of middle-class opinion harbour with respect to the wonderful times teachers have as a professional body.
All that notwithstanding, the contentions of the last four months or so have brought to the fore certain systemic questions and anxieties which cannot be left unattended if the long-term interests of higher education are to be safeguarded, both in terms of governance and quality. We have here two major issues in mind: one, the status and sanctity of institutional processes; two, the matter of the funding of education, especially at the university and college level.
The present Minister in the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), who is also a big ideologue of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has not only questioned the locus standi of the University Grants Commission (UGC), but has also given the argument that that already unconscionable amounts of money are allocated to the educational sector, and any additional expense here would bring the state edifice crashing down.
It is important to recall that the UGC was established in 1956 by an Act of Parliament in a post-colonial context in order that an autonomous body now existed that would, free – as far as possible – of governmental control and colonial bureaucratic mindset, “take … all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities”. Accordingly, the responsibility for the periodic pay revision for college / university teachers has always belonged to the UGC rather than to the Central / State Governments. From the outset, therefore, the UGC has functioned through a system of Pay Committees set up by it and accountable to it. At all times of teachers’ pay revision coinciding with Pay Revision for government employees, it is the recommendation made by the UGC which has been implemented by every particular central government.
In December 1997, UGC submitted its Recommendations on teachers’ pay revision to the Central Government. A fairly sordid sequence of events follows therefrom. Amazingly, the MHRD took the position that the UGC had no locus standi at all in the matter of teachers’ pay revision. This position was not only taken in the teeth of the tabled report of the Standing Committee of Parliament on Education, but in contempt also of the Delhi High Court which stipulated in its interim Order : “We expect the Government of India to avail this opportunity and immediately open the avenue for a constructive dialogue with the office bearers of the representative associations....” Further, “Needless to say the UGC has to be associated with the dialogue and discussions. The discussions shall centre around the recommendations made by the UGC.” The government however has not made any attempt to follow this course.
The conclusion here is both obvious and ominous: this Minister of HRD and the Central Government, who seem completely sold out on selling higher education to the highest private bidder, have respect neither for verifiable truth nor for statutory institutional practices and prerogatives, nor for the opinion of Parliament’s own committees or for the Honourable High Court, not to speak of the considered opinion of teachers all over the country. This ominous disregard of due process on behalf of the HRDM is matched equally by his cussed imperviousness to the rationale provided by the UGC in its report with respect to teachers’ higher qualifications at the point of entry, late entry consequentially into the profession, lack of any perks commensurate with Group A Services, not to speak of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), and complete absence of professional support structures or promotional avenues.
What must be seen as a systemic failure quite beyond the question of teachers’ pay revision is the fact that there no longer seems any place within controlling structures of authority for a culture of reasoned debate or lawful decision-making. Teachers are to be denied (not to speak of more lowly toilers of the country) despite a preponderance of fact and argument; MP’s salaries (in fact the only bill to have been passed by the recent session of Parliament) can be quadrupled all in a matter of an hour or two.
After the red-herrings have been exposed for what they are, the HRDM’s punch line is that the state has no money. This line is by now old, familiar and much commented on. Beginning with the NEP of 1985 – a policy wholly formulated by the World Bank – the official class position has been that too little is spent on elementary education and too much on higher education. The spurious dichotomy sought to be created here, as we know, has had behind it a neo-imperialist thrust, apart from being bad in logic and seeking to obfuscate the crucial question as to the overall money spent on Education.
Firstly, no worthwhile elementary education can take place without a concomitantly flourishing college and university system. It is not for nothing that Education Commission after Education Commission in Independent India has mouthed the sentiment that college and university education is the “mother of all education.” However, banal the phraseology, it is true enough. As a wag might say, perhaps, being “mother” it has also been receiving a suitably patriarchal treatment!
Secondly, because it suits comprador industry to import obsolete technology and western capitalists to export such technology against protected patent and intellectual property rights, where is the need to invest in higher education in India? Consider the shameful fact that, the Pokhran II not withstanding, Indian industry has not averaged more than 0.6% of its capital investment in R&D since independence!
Thirdly, a neo-liberalised economy requires higher educational input only of a kind that translates instantly into skilled input. Why invest, therefore, in departments, disciplines and systems of thought that produce no more and no less than a critical and opinionated citizenry? Bad both commercially and politically. Yet the impression continues to be propagated that whereas countries the world over have sorted out (i.e. scaled down) their investment patterns in higher education, India remains the only country that continues to be a prolific spender in this sector.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Be it spending as percentage of GNP public expenditure on education as percentage of total government expenditure public expenditure on higher education as percentage of total public expenditure on all levels of education plan allocation to higher education as percentage of total allocation to education, India, both among the developing and developed countries, spends absolutely the least! There could be no more damning indictment of our national priorities and paradigms of development.
The HRD Minister's whining about the money factor in relation to the pay scales, promotional avenues and other aspects of professional development recommended by the UGC for teachers is merely a reflection of the larger objectives of current class rule in India rather than anything else. The latest piece of underhand gimmickry perpetrated by the HRDM comprises the paid public advertisement brought out by the Government on teachers’ revised pay scales. The said public advertisement claims that the teachers have been put on parity with Group A Central Services. A careful study will reveal the devious sleight-of-hand that the Government advertisement seeks to propagate and the crucial concealment of facts it engages in. Far from parity with Group A Services, teachers are placed for the first time on par with Group B Services in terms of scales. Across a whole career span the disparity both in terms of career advancement and absolute money loss become blatantly obvious.
As to service conditions, the UGC circular of July 28 makes it explicit that these will henceforth be formulated by the UGC by Regulatory power “with the approval of the Central Government”. At one go, not only are teachers degraded in terms of pay-parity with Group A Services, but the autonomy of the university system and its authoritative bodies with respect to framing service conditions is usurped through draconian centralisation. In the meanwhile, as the graph below will show, teachers are to have no assured career promotions (as opposed to three in Central Services), no advancement, in any case beyond the Reader / Selection Grade Scale, guaranteeing a double-decade stagnation on average, no professional support systems, not to speak of housing or other assured facility. It is on such terms that the State, believe it or not, expects to draw and retain “ the best talent” in teaching, and to compete with the centres of excellence in the developed world. Of such stuff are wicked dreams made.
TEACHERS STRIKE
A Victory For The Democratic Movement
K.K.Theckedath
In what has been described as the largest ever mobilisation of intellectuals in the world, nearly four lakh college and university teachers in the country, comprising lecturers, readers and professors, went on an indefinite strike from August It. This strike was settled with an agreement on September 5, when the All India Federation of College and University Teachers Organisations (AIFUCTO) signed a statement calling off the 26 day long strike. It may be pointed out here that, following the example of Sushma Swaraj who had demanded that the P&T employees call off their strike before talks could begin, the HRD minister, Murli Manohar Joshi, had also declared at a press conference at hiruvananthapuram that he would hold no talks with the teachers until the strike had been called off.
As it turned out, the minister met the AIFUCTO leaders at 3 p m on September 5, after five rounds of talks had been completed between the secretary, HRQ, and the AIFUCTO. He finalized a written statement to be issued by the government, the secretary gave a signed copy of the minutes to the AIFUTO, and then the AIFUCTO, at a meeting of its secretariat, considered the statement and decided to call off the strike. The AIFUCTO leaders met the minister at 9 am and gave their statement calling off the strike. With this has ended the vicious practice adopted by the BIP in Uftar Pradesh as well as at the centre, of forcing trade unions to call of agitations conditionally.UNITY & INTENSE PROPAGANDA
What brought about this change? It was the united movement of four lakh teachers throughout the country, led by hundreds of experienced teacher leaders who had clonducted all-India strike in 1987. There were state the level actions in all the stateson August 4 in the form of one-day cease work, dharnas and rallies, to give a warning to the govenment. The strike saw unity of action from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu, from Tripura to Gujarat, Maharashtra and Goa During the entire period of the strike, the teachers organised rallies, hunger strikes, dharnas and huge processions in the university centres and state capitals. Teachers in delegations met a large number of leaders of political parties, cutting across political lines, and explained the issues of the strike to the public through handbills and street corner meetings.
The HRD minister tried to utilise the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student organisation of the Sangh Parivar, to bring their notorious strong-arm tactics into play against the strike. He even went so far as to spread the canard that the strike was politically motivated. Astonishing reply to this was given by the teachers themselves, indeed when more than 30000 teachers, from all over the country gathered at the Ram Lila Grounds at New Delhi on September 4, and marched to that these scales were given under the column Irie Mrs of the Commission. In fact, the UGC had, in an official letter to the government of India, accepted the scales of the Pay Review Committee, namely, the Rastogi Committee. The AIFUCTO was clear from the beginning about its demand and had clearly spelt it out as above in its charter. Thus when the strike was called off, there was little confusion in the ranks of the AIFUCTO.
It will also be noted that while other organisations of teachers (of 12 central universities) under the FEDCUTA organised movements, including strikes for specified limited periods, which really helped the ALFUCTO, it was only the AIFUCTO which had given the call for an indefinite strike. The AIFUCTO is thankful to these sister organisations for their support and hopes that this coordination will further increase in the coming days.PROFESSONAL UPGRADING
The major gains of the strike are that the teaching profession has been made more attractive for the new entrants and substantial gains have been made for the existing teachers. A new entrant with the minimum qualifications will be encouraged to enrol for M Phil/MPh D as now, if they are registered for either of these courses and their guides so certify, they will receive incentives in the form of cash allowances or in kind or in both. The periods for the first promotion and the second motion, which were eight years in both cases, had already been reduced to six years and five years respectively, so that after 11 years a teacher without a Ph D or M Phil will be able to reach the Selection Grade. With a Ph D a teacher could reach the position of a reader in eight years. But the qualitatively new element that has emerged as a part of the agreement signed on September 5, is that now there is a third promotion possible for all teachers. The agreement states: "A preliminary communication indicating the views of the AIFUCTO in this respect has been received from the UGC. The scheme, as finally formuIated by the UGC, would be expeditiously cleared by the government, and in any Ease, within four weeks from the receipt of thefinallyfomrulated proposal from the UGC." The AIFUCTO's proposal is that for the third promotion there should be a screening based on certain objective inputs and the scale for the Super-Selection Grade should be Rs 16,400-20,900.
The government had earlier accepted the position that it would subsidise the states by giving grants to the extent of 80 percent of the additional expenditure for implementing the revised scheme. In the final agreement it has been accepted by the government that if some states have difficulty in raising the remaining 20 per cent, the government should consider it sympathetically. In any case, the government is prepared to pay the entire arrears in one installment.
These are some of the gains in the present agreement. These represent a definite positive step in our attempt to make college and university teaching an attractive career to draw the best talents, and to give relief to the existing teachers.
But the greatest gain is that the confidence of the common man has been restored in the self-confidence of untied movement for the just demands for any section of the working peopIe. The tradition which was sought to be established --of trade union struggles being crashed or fizzling out because of the adamant attitude of the government --has been broken. It is a significant victory for the democratic movement.
(Dr K K Theckedath is the president of the AIFUCTO.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
EDUCATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|