Neither cultural nor revolutionary

In the government’s new ‘cultural revolution’, culture becomes a mask to hide material realities

We live in ironic times where the establishment quotes Bob Dylan, an anti-establishment figure. Last month, the Prime Minister cited lines from Dylan’s song, The Times They Are A-Changin’ including “And don’t criticise/ What you can’t understand”, ostensibly targeted at the critics of demonetisation.

Demonetisation is an event of biblical proportions. But even as its economic consequences are discussed, what goes unnoticed are the new cultural imaginaries that are sought to be put in place. Rather than see demonetisation as only an economic measure to curb corruption, the government wants to usher in “a behavioural change at all levels of society”, which is a part of “the grand ‘cultural revolution’ that the PM is working on” (M. Venkaiah Naidu in The Indian Express, Nov. 29).

The problem is that this cultural revolution is neither cultural nor revolutionary. Culture becomes a mere appendage to technological transformations which still mask material exploitation. In this cultural revolution, the government still needs lucky draw contests (and prizes worth Rs. 340 crore) to incentivise digital payments and behaviourial change. Also, the revolution will be ushered in through an executive fiat from above rather than it emerging organically from the people.

Emptiness of words

Technology is the fulcrum of the new cultural revolution. As the Prime Minister puts it, in ‘Digital India’, “your phone is your wallet.” But when Dylan becomes yoked to the project of Cashless India and Digital India, culture becomes instrumental and hollow. Otherwise, how is The Times..., reflecting the American youth’s anger against imperialism perpetrated by their own government, quoted by a government that has come down heavily on dissent?

The cultural revolution is supposed to completely overhaul the system. In a reference rich with religio-cultural symbolism, the Prime Minister calls demonetisation a “yagna against corruption, terrorism and black money.” There is, of course, tremendous hardship for the people. But he asks them to endure it to make the nation great and modern. Remarkably, in this vision, there are no cultural revolutions to annihilate caste, the most important barrier to India becoming modern. Nor there are yagnas against class and gender exploitation.

In this cultural revolution without culture, anything goes, so the Prime Minister can wish that “the youth seize the moment and be the winds of change” even after his government has virtually criminalised any youth politics unpalatable to the state. Or a Union Minister can also quote Dylan to critique patriarchy in Muslim community, but not patriarchy among Hindus.

No critical pedagogy

Such a conjuncture is itself a result of India’s failure to build a critical pedagogy. Instead of questioning the fundamental bases of exploitation, the entire pedagogy has been built on a technocratic understanding of society catering to building “meritorious” citizens, a society which merely reinforces existing hierarchies. In this pedagogy, as the philosopher Ivan Illich put it, “medical treatment is mistaken for healthcare, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work.”

It is on this ground already ploughed by conformist currents that the seeds of the new cultural revolution are sown. How else does one explain sections of the most “educated”, including in the bureaucracy, with a bird’s-eye view of governance, seeing demonetisation as a panacea to all our ills? The crux of technocratic thinking is to paper over systemic causes of issues such as poverty and prescribe technological fixes.

The root cause for our misery in this technocratic vision is a culture steeped in corruption. While there is truth in this, the decadent culture is not caused by the ruling classes in general, but only, as a government representative puts it, “encouraged by Congress and its friends all these years in power.” Again, the accumulation of privilege by the upper castes/classes or of the state-sanctioned plunder of public wealth, forests, minerals, etc. by the ruling classes goes unmentioned.

When one identifies the problem as such, the solution can only be superficial. Demonetisation becomes a magic wand to end corruption. When the Prime Minister tells a rally that the rich are queuing up at the houses of the poor to seek their help in depositing black money, he is not referring to the ultra-rich in India. So, the cultural revolution is already making a distinction between the rich themselves.

In this cultural revolution, culture becomes a mask to hide fundamental material realities. Thus, it does not tell us that the top one per cent of people own 58.4 per cent of the country’s wealth. When the bottom 50 per cent own only 2.1 per cent of the wealth, how does the promised manna of a few thousand rupees in Jan Dhan accounts alter anything?

The staggering levels of inequality have very little to do with black money held in high denomination notes, but are a result of a skewed distribution of wealth, resources and power legally enforced. That among the prominent economies of the world, India is only second to Russia, which is known for its mafia capitalism, in terms of the wealth owned by the top one per cent says something about our rapacious model of development, especially under liberalisation.

The cultural revolution does not tell us that the revenue foregone by the government in corporate income tax, excise and custom duty since 2005-06 is Rs. 42 trillion — an amount which can fund the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act for over 100 years! Neither does it tell us that state-owned banks have written off Rs.1.14 lakh crore of bad loans from 2013 to 2015 or that just two corporate houses alone owe over Rs.3 lakh crore in debt to the banks.

The tragedy is that the questions not asked by the cultural revolution are left unasked by popular discourse. And they will not be until we are prisoners of what the cultural theorist Henry Giroux calls as the “relentless activity of thoughtlessness” fostered by dominant power through its cultural apparatuses. What they do is to transform the genuine aspirations of the people for equality, a corruption-free society and anger against the existing system into sanitised expressions like demonetisation which do not fundamentally challenge the system.

It is in the absence of a genuine cultural revolution that we have reached a conjuncture in which a nation as diverse and unequal as India is asked to place its hopes on an individual leader as a talisman for a cultural revolution. A cultural revolution in which mobile phones will herald a corruption-free society. To unveil this cultural revolution, we need to go back to deciphering Dylan ourselves.

Nissim Mannathukkaren is Chair, International Development Studies, Dalhousie University, Canada. E-mail: nmannathukkaren@dal.ca

Source: The Hindu, 28-12-2016

What can governments do when jobs run out?

Martin Ford writes in the Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future that around 47% of total employment in the US, around 64 million jobs, have the potential to be automated perhaps within a decade or two. Europe is already facing a crisis of jobs. Youth unemployment in Italy stands around 36% while it is nearly 44% in Spain. Thanks to offshoring and automation, we are seeing a polarisation in the labour market that is split between low-wage service jobs and highly-paid top end with middle class jobs disappearing everywhere. India has a mass of low-paying jobs (which masks the problem); its pace of job creation pales in comparison with the millions entering the workforce each year and, according to the World Bank, 69% of jobs in India are threatened by automation. Education and skill training no longer guarantee jobs as the tech landscape is changing and making jobs scarce.

Governments need to wise up to the political implications of the lack of opportunities in their economies. There is also the wider crisis of capitalism to contend with; a lack of jobs naturally means a decline in the number of consumers for goods and services, a fact compounded by the millions who retire each year and spend less as their savings deplete. Ford writes that “if automation eliminates a substantial fraction of the jobs that consumers rely on, or if wages are driven so low that very few people have significant discretionary income, then it is difficult to see how a modern mass-market economy could continue to thrive”.

One way of managing social tensions, he argues, is for governments to implement a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens. Also known as a universal basic income (UBI) or a guaranteed basic income, the idea of an income for all has been around for years – it was backed by the Left and even libertarian thinkers like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and is beginning to gain traction again among economists.

Proponents like Ford feel that a cash boost via a universal basic income mitigates the political problem of creating jobs and it provides disposable income that can be used to pay for goods and services, which companies depend on. The idea appeals to some conservatives because (a) it boosts the economy, (b) it is easier to administer and (c) it can potentially downsize the bureaucracy which currently manages a range of welfare programmes.

Universal basic income has been criticised and reckoned as unfeasible on two grounds. One is that it reduces beneficiaries’ incentive to work and encourages delinquency and, two, that it would be too expensive to implement in mass societies.

There are good counterarguments to both these contentions. Studies have shown additional income does not really reduce the incentive to work. Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook and a backer of UBI, points to research which shows that people in the US used cash transfers for mostly housing and food costs and that less than 1% of the money was spent on alcohol or drugs. The Freakonomics radio show this year discussed UBI and referred to an income transfer experiment in the town of Dauphin, Canada, which was implemented in the 1970s but not properly evaluated owing to lack of

funding. Research subsequently showed that in poor families that received up to $15,000 a year, hospitalisation rates fell, high-school completion rates increased (as families chose to keep boys in schools rather than press them to work); those with full-time jobs did not reduce the number of hours they worked and women spent more time with their new-borns and pace their return to jobs.

Implementing basic income is, of course, expensive. Ford calculates that an unconditional $10,000 basic income for all adults in the US would cost around $2 trillion. This cost, according to him, can be offset to an extent by reducing or eliminating numerous federal and state anti-poverty programmes – but it would still require around $1 trillion in new revenue. Ford says that governments will need to tax businesses a lot more, rather put this burden on workers and employees who already pay for existing welfare programs. He writes “if you accept the argument that our [US] economy is likely to become ever less labour-intensive over time, then it follows logically that we ought to shift our taxation scheme away from labour and toward capital”.

These discussions in the developed world seem far removed from India as the costs seem prohibitive and as the country grapples with more foundational issues like ease of doing business, addressing education and skill deficits and kick-starting investments while banks are stuck with bad loans. But given high poverty levels and the anger among youth that will inevitably rise following failure to find rewarding jobs, policymakers will need to serious consider basic income, or at least some form of it.

Tadit Kundu reviewed the debate among economists about the scope of implementing universal basic income in India. The idea has the support of prominent experts like Pranab Bardhan and Jean Dreze. Bardhan says that a basic income of Rs. 10,000 per year – about three quarters of the official poverty line – would entail a cost equivalent to 10% of GDP, far more than the 4.2% that the government spends on explicit subsidies. He writes that discontinuing some or all of the subsidies (including tax exemptions for the corporate sector) while retaining expenditures on health, education and rural and urban development programmes can secure a reasonable basic income for all. Kundu points to research which shows poor families in Madhya Pradesh which received unconditional cash transfers ended doing more labour and work (not less). There was also a shift from casual wage labour to more self-employed farming and business activity and there was also reduction in migration caused by distress.

Ideas such as universal basic income are yet to be mainstreamed in India. But as developed countries increasingly warm to the idea (Finland is set to implement its version in 2017), policymakers may find it difficult to avoid discussing guaranteed minimum income.

Source: Hindustan Times, 27-12-2016

Online learning grows 50% in 2016; tech, English take lead

Online learning grew by 50 per cent in India this year, and technology and English were the most sought-after skills, says a report.

According to Coursera, a provider of online courses from top universities, out of the 10 most popular courses, technology constituted 70%, followed by English for career advancement.

Coursera has 1.8 million learners from India, out of 23 million registered learners globally, making the country the second-largest base of online learners after the US.

Compared with 2015, Coursera has seen a 50% jump in registered users, especially among technology learners, it said in a release.

“Considering the crucial role played by the IT industry, employing over 13 million people in India, it’s no surprise that 7 out of the top 10 online courses in India are technology-focused,” said Nikhil Sinha, chief business officer, Coursera.

He added that “over the next few years, online courses and credentials will become extremely common and even requirements to be considered for job roles that need specific skills”.

Coursera is an education-focused technology company that offers courses and learning experiences from the world’s top universities and education institutions, including Stanford University, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, University of Virginia, and ISB.

Source: Hindustan Times, 28-12-2016

Evolutionary Enlightenment

ANDREW COHEN





Traditional enlightenment is what I learned from my teacher, but Evolutionary Enlightenment is what I have discovered over the last three decades.During this time, I have found a new source of emotional, psychological and spiritual liberation that easily exists within anyone's reach. To put it simply , enlightenment is evolving. It is no longer found only in the bliss of timeless Being; it is found also in the ecstatic urgency of evolutionary Becoming. We are all part of a developmental process that had a beginning in time, and that is going somewhere.When we apply the perspective of evolution to the nature of enlightenment, it changes everything. From the perspective of the eternal timeless ground, the traditional teachers are right. The highest spiritual truth is that nothing ever happened, you and I were never born, and the big bang never occurred. That's enlightenment. But from the perspective of evolution, the entire picture changes. Time is a linear process. Fourteen billion years of development have produced all of manifestation -the entire known universe and everything that's contained within it, including its greatest mystery: the capacity for consciousness itself. Our own emerging desire for spiritual freedom is not separate from the impulse that is driving the entire process. I call this the Evolutionary Impulse. Evolutionary Enlightenment calls on us to awaken to both the timeless peace of Being and the relentless passion of the Evolutionary Impulse.

Some laugh it off, others fume at NAAC score

New Delhi: TIMES NEWS NETWORK





DU Teachers See Ratings As A Ploy To Further `Privatisation Agenda'

Many in Delhi University have taken the National Assessment and Accreditation Council's (NAAC) ratings with a healthy dose of scepticism. It's not surprising that the CGPA scores and the inevitable ranking of them do not match either the public perception or the actual worth of the institutions judged. Consequently , St Stephen's ranking below less popular colleges in DU is mildly embarrassing but not to be taken too seriously.“The quality of teachers hasn't gone down,“ said Nandita Narain who teaches mathematics at the college. “Students come to us for the lectures, tutorials, extra-curricular activities and the atmosphere. We haven't lost any of that.“ She maintained that the interaction with faculty members had gone well but the one with students may have been less cordial.
St Stephen's, as another senior teacher pointed out, was going through a phase of turmoil when the NAAC process was undertaken. Practically all of 2015 was spent in unsavoury battles with various students--one over an e-magazine and another, a sexual harassment case--that went to court. This, together with attempts to amend the college's constitution led to “severe polarisation“ in the college.
“NAAC requires you to have an internal quality assessment committee, which includes the most senior teachers. The committee formed had new, junior teachers and most of the data was not provided at all,“ he said. The tea cher alleged that the former principal had himself complained of the faculty being “fossilised.“ “He (the ex-principal) was trying to tell everyone that the college is going to the dogs because of the teachers,“ he said. “The NAAC score is a complete misrepresentation.“
NAAC may not capture the real picture even in times of peace. As Narain opines, members of the Delhi University Teachers' Association at least don't take the NAAC terribly seriously“. “We see this as a ploy to further their privatisation agenda by linking NAAC to funding. Those doing well will be pushed toward autonomy ,“ she said.
Academics fear this will be used to “de-link“ the colleges with better grades from the universities and get them to “generate their own funds.“ “This means dismembering the university and could mean massive fee hike,“ said Rudrashish Chakraborty of the English department at Kirori Mal College. That, in turn, will impact diversity that NAAC seeks to reward.
Chakraborty doesn't believe the NAAC score reflects the real picture. He helped with the process at KMC, that's received a 3.54 score--the third highest in DU so far--more out of “loyalty to the institution“ than any faith in the value of the accredita tion. “NAAC follows a one-size-fits-all norm, a uniform set for universities and colleges.That can't work. It doesn't take into account the material conditions of different institutions and how they survive.The only objective of this is to give legitimacy to private educational institutions in terms of grades,“ he said.
Both Chakraborty and Narain point out that there's “disproportionate weightage“ to research in undergraduate college and to parameters over which colleges may not have a lot of control--infrastructure for public-funded institutions, curriculum, leadership when they are ruled centrally by the university administration.
“The criteria have to be finely calibrated keeping in mind the diversity of the education system but these considerations are hardly factored in,“ said Chakraborty .“NAAC doesn't have a mechanism to recognise the contribution of teachers in the classroom, that is, good teaching which benefits students. It ends up promoting self-interest in the form of individual research and projects at the cost of collective interest, especially that of students.“
Facilities for research for non-science subjects are hard to come by too and how do you increase support for students without funds? “This is a very mechanical way of looking at things. There's nothing academic about it, no depth or serious exploration of the actual problems. Where there should be a surprise visit, we have a three-day carnival,“ he retorted.
The good it does is incidental to the actual process and purpose of the exercise.KMC and several other colleges refurbished and augmented their infrastructure for the NAAC assessment round.“It brought the college that had been in a state of decline together. It arrested that decline. It created a bond between all the stakeholders--teachers, students, parents--and created a social bond in the professional space,“ added Chakraborty .

Source: Times of India, 28-12-2016

Bahrain to host 8th World Education Summit

Bahrain Bayan School and Elets Technomedia will jointly organise the eighth edition of ‘World Education Summit (WES)’ in the Kingdom of Bahrain from March 8-9, 2017.

To discuss the modalities of the mega event, Dr Shaikha Mai Al Otaibi, chairperson of Bayan School; Dr Ravi Gupta, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Elets Technomedia Pvt Ltd and Seema Gupta, Project Manager of Elet’s Digital Learning magazine, met with Dr Majid bin Ali Al-Nuaimi, the Education Minister of Bahrain.

Dr Al-Nuaimi stressed the importance of the pioneering project which, he said, “will benefit the educational community in Bahrain and abroad”. The Organisations and Committees director Kefaya Al-Enzour also attended the meeting.

WES-Bahrain 2017 will see vibrant sessions on various aspects of school, higher, vocational and technical education besides skill development. The Summit will witness presence of Global Educational Thought Leaders, Policy Makers and Industry Leaders to discuss and deliberate upon various aspects of the development of knowledge society.

Bahrain Bayan School is among the top schools of the Arab monarchy in the Persian Gulf that focuses on values and culture.

Recently, His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Deputy Prime Minister, Bahrain inaugurated a state-of-the-art science and technology building at Bayan School.

Source: Digital Learning, 23-12-2016

A little bit of hope

The lifting of the ban on a newspaper, a birthday phone call, are small steps. They could be a beginning

For Kashmir, this has been a year of greater tumult — from the death of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed and the political uncertainty that followed, to the violence, clampdowns and casualties after the killing of home-grown militant Burhan Wani in South Kashmir. As the year ends, however, there may be reason for cautious hope. The Jammu and Kashmir government has lifted the ban on Kashmir Reader, imposed three months ago on grounds of being a threat to “public tranquillity”. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has also promised to review the cases against young men who are currently incarcerated and did not commit “serious crimes”. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Nawaz Sharif to wish him on his birthday and Pakistan released 220 Indian fishermen.

The growing chasm between the government and the people of Kashmir became stark almost immediately after Wani’s death on July 8. As Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti told this newspaper in an interview (IE, December 18), “I knew that it would have repercussions (Wani’s death)… But it will go to such an extent, I had never thought…”. The chief minister has expressed anger, helplessness and sadness — the politics of Kashmir and the aspirations of its people were being influenced and shaped by political actors from beyond the constitutional and democratic spectrum. The use of pellet guns by security forces left around 100 dead, 1,000 partially or fully blind and another 12,000 injured, many of them young men, even children. Security forces too faced casualties — some estimates put the injured at thousands. Over 500 people were arrested under the Public Security Act — including human rights activist Khurram Parvez, released later — and about 6,000 people in all.

The publication of a newspaper and a birthday phone call are small steps, but they could be a beginning if they are built on over the next year and beyond. They could indicate that the governments, both in the state and Centre, can look at Kashmir from beyond just the prism of strategic and security interests. Political and diplomatic measures will be key to bringing back dialogue as a way to solve differences. Hopefully, these steps are a precursor to that conversation.

Source: Indian Express, 27-12-2016