Foundational Knowledge and De-decentring Tendency

Dhananjay Rai | Vol. 1(1) 2011: 46-57 | Indian Researcher

The paper focuses on the relationship between foundational knowledge and de-decentring tendency and thereafter interrogates both in the context of the avowal of market-led suzerainty in India. The foundational knowledge denotes throughout the paper the realm of higher education. The de-decentring tendency can be construed as centralisation or centralised tendency and its return: centralisation of foundational knowledge in terms of appropriation and monopolisation. The justification of using de-decentring tendency in place of centralised tendency is based on following premises: centralised tendency exhibits the concentration of foundational knowledge in few hands whereas de-decentring tendency demonstrates not just this concentration but also the return of concentration in contemporary time after limited rupture. The perusal in this paper starts with the premise that foundational knowledge constitutes a sine qua non-aspect of the transformative voyage. The transformation of corporeal reality through foundational knowledge and the creation of corporeal reality to produce required foundational knowledge has been an incessant concern of struggling people. In a way, foundational knowledge becomes a symbol of not only protest but also alternative vision. The foundational knowledge per se denotes herein a special value: a value, which has multifaceted purposes ranging from the betterment of everyday life and creation of the emancipatory world to contesting the dominant knowledge. The foundational knowledge thereby becomes an immensely significant attribute. The creation of knowledge through higher education, and its copious capacity to create magnificent knowledge catapults higher education to the influential pedestal.

Foundational Knowledge and De-decentring Tendency

The utility of higher education (hereafter-foundational knowledge) has omniscient value. It is because of this virtue, foundational knowledge does not cease to exist as an innocent sphere. The contestation over value therefore has its own significance since ages. Foundational knowledge acquires an eminent space due to two pronged activities: acquisition and dissemination. The acquiring activities entail the primary responsibility of foundational knowledge that is acquiring investigatory aspects through analysis. There are three realms of it: Epochal Analysis, Contemporaneous Analysis and Vision Certitude. In epochal analysis, odyssey of human activities in socio-political and economic spheres and applied activities like science and technology are being investigated and analysed. The epochal analysis explains functionality of human activities and applied activities in the sense of genesis, ownership, utility and discrimination. The aim of contemporaneous analysis is to locate human activities and applied activities in terms of comprehending continuation, modification and issue of relevancy of the past. Vision certitude is one of the fulcrums of foundational knowledge and has double role. The first role is to envisage a necessarily bettering future. The second is preparedness in case of prognosis of miserable condition. In other words, betterment and countering eventualities are twin aspects of vision certitude. In addition, obviously, prevalent corporeal realities decide the nature of vision certitude.

Concerning disseminative role, the utility of foundational knowledge becomes immensely vital. Dissemination on the one hand becomes fructuous in terms of acquainting the people to epochal analysis, contemporaneous analysis and vision certitude; on the other hand, it can also obfuscate the dissemination and leads to centralised tendency (hereafter de-decentring tendency). The former represents decentralised tendency whereby people could access, empower and utilise the foundational knowledge. The latter symbolises de-decentring tendency through which dominant forces have monopolised and obfuscated the dissemination of acquiring aspect of foundational knowledge. The de-decentring tendency has appropriated all three aspects (epochal analysis, contemporaneous analysis and vision certitude) in a few hands. This can be elucidated by contrasting functional knowledge and foundational knowledge. The functional knowledge is a repository of elementary knowledges. The functional knowledge a.k.a. elementary knowledge is all about acquainting and equipping people with basic information. Equipping people with basic information is not at all a worrisome aspect for the ruling echelon. In fact, emphasis on functional knowledge has strengthened the continuation of ruling echelons in two ways: first, functional knowledge has been forcibly made the only component required for livelihood. Therefore, responsibility of ruling echelons gets over with the opening of functional knowledge institutions; second, the emphasis on ‘what’ is more important than ‘why’ in functional knowledge. Put differently, issue of epistemology and ontology is bypassed and description occupies the dominant space. Foundational knowledge is all about epistemological and ontological sojourn. In functional knowledge, these two important concerns are deliberately omitted.

Trajectory of De-decentring Tendency

The contestation over foundational knowledge and its monopolisation since time immemorial have been a concern writ large for ruling echelons. Trajectory of de-decentring tendency exhibits this aspect profoundly. The first phase of de-decentring tendency began with surplus accumulation and advancement in material sphere. The advancement in material sphere led to two types of development. The first development led to justification of knowledge through foundational knowledge for few classes. So they could enable the rule over property less people. This reflection is easily identifiable in Plato (Plato 1970, 2003) and Aristotle (Aristotle 1984). “Public education was almost nonexistence in the world of Plato and Aristotle…” (Curren 2007: 8).

“When we abuse or commend the upbringing of individual people”, according to Plato, “and say that one of us is educated and the other uneducated, we sometimes use this latter term of men who have in fact had a thorough education- one directed towards petty trade or the merchant-shipping business, or something like that . But I take it that for the purpose of the present discussion we are not going to treat this sort of thing as education; what we have in mind in education from childhood in virtue, a training which produces a keen desire to become a perfect citizen who knows how to rule and be ruled as justice demands” (Plato 1970:73). Therefore, in schema of foundational knowledge, what he calls virtue, “concerns itself primarily with developing the upper classes of society: the leaders and the military. For those who devote themselves to the trades and crafts and to industrial and agricultural labour: in a word, for the vast majority of the population, Plato does nothing. His system is thus, not for the many but for the few…” (Lodge and Solomon 2000: 249).

Continuation of analogous conduit remained an intrinsic aspect of Aristotle. His discussion on education cannot be insulated from the state, leisure, citizenship and slavery (Aristotle 1984). For Aristotle, education “aims at producing such a character as will issue in acts tending to promote the happiness of the state; in the second place, it aims at preparing the soul for that right enjoyment of leisure which becomes possible when practical needs have been satisfied” (Burnet 1980:1). “Since, the end of individuals and of states is the same, the end of the best man and of the best constitution must also be the same; it is therefore evident that there ought to exist in both of them the excellences of leisure…” (Aristotle 1984: 2116). Consequently, he focuses on public education by the state: the public education for the citizenry. The citizenry was propertied class. His schema of public education was to strengthen the state. Common pursuit of leisure was made unavailable for non-citizenry like women, slave and outsiders. The exclusivist nature of foundational knowledge and its creation were the hallmarks of this period which get reflected categorically in Plato and Aristotle. Interestingly, in both and general character of this period, there was almost no hesitancy in terms of providing functional knowledge but foundational knowledge was out of reach for the people.

The Second development in the first phase was deprivation of education not only on class basis but also through creation of ascriptive identities. Ascriptive identity became the fulcrum to debar access to knowledge and holding sway over other. Dalits and others are apt examples in this regard. The irony was that the functional knowledge was allowed to them to remain as exploited labour but foundational knowledge was strictly circumvented. Various strictures and sermons can be found in the religious texts where severe punishments were envisaged and implemented. The mythological killings in various religious texts are telling aspects and have been followed verbatim. In addition, any possibility to acquire such knowledge, which could possibly destroy the class-caste duo discrimination, was botched. The example of calendar is very apt herein.

…brahminism must have had some peculiar function in the early means of production, sane outstanding success which gave it a grip upon society. Mere superstition cannot arise, unless it has some deep productive roots, though it may survive by inertia. One of these functions was a good calendar. It does not suffice here, as in Europe, for the agriculturist to note the end of winter by natural signs. The word for rain varsa also means year, so important is the annual monsoon for India. The Indian farmer has to prepare his land before the monsoon sets in. The sowing can only be done after the proper rainy season begun, or the sprouts will die. The fields are best weeded during the mid-monsoon break. If the harvest be brought in before the last seasonal rain, there is every chance that grain will rot on the threshing floor. Empirical observation says that the four-month rains set in, break, and cease at approximately fixed times of the year. The real difficulty lay in telling the time of the year accurately (Kosambi 1996:250).

From ancient to the medieval period, controlling higher education viz. creation of foundational knowledge was a process writ large. The monopolisation of foundational knowledge was absolute. This process was a reflection of greatest misery meted out to deprived sections. In fact, in the medieval period of Europe, any position challenging the orthodoxy of the church in the sphere of human activities: social-political-economic and applied activities like science-technology (whether the universe is heliocentric or geocentric), led to the silencing of voices through ex-communication, declaration as heretic and even awarding death penalty. In India, for deprived section despite ruling classes interchangeability, the condition remained similar. “… [T]he political structure was sustained by the zamindars, caste again was important, since the zamindars, by and large, belonged to the dominant castes which maintained their position by force” (Habib 2000:176).

The rupture with this phase became imminent due to arrival of modernity in a many ways and led to the second phase. The changes that were unfolding have been categorically encapsulated by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind (Marx and Engels 1999: 92 ).

The changes in corporeal spheres were so profound, that they led to hesitant responses from John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and J.S. Mill. Hesitant responses mean concession to certain extent but not beyond that. One example would suffice here. Immanuel Kant is known for his categorical-imperative formulation. The categorical imperative suggests that “[a]ct only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 1994:30). One should not practice the act that cannot be replicated onto him/her. In other words, individual’s body remain fulcrum of action. Despite this, he could not resist to make such remark: “…in short, this fellow [a carpenter] was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid” (Eze 2001:57). Similarly, John Locke suggests, “[k]nowledge and science in general is the business only of those who are at ease and leisure. Those who have particular callings ought to understand them; and it is no unreasonable proposal, nor impossible to be compassed, that they should think and reason right about what is their daily employment” (Locke 1996:182). Hence, foundational knowledge is not a cup of tea for everyone.

In Rousseau, nature plays a central role. For him, education is meant to recover or shape a natural man. The best utility of education is to reconcile man, nature and things so that best possible and holistic internal development could take place. Rousseau suggests that, “[w]e are born weak, we need strength; we are born totally unprovided, we need aid; we are born stupid, we need judgement. Everything we do not have at our birth and which we need when we are grown is given us by education. This education comes to us from nature of from men or from things. The internal development of our faculties and our organs is the education of nature. The use that we are taught to make of this development is the education of men. And what we acquire from own experience about the objects which affect us is the education of things” (Rousseau 1979: 37). Put differently, education in the hands of Rousseau becomes an instrument to insulate the prevalent corrupt order in place of transforming the society. The prevalent corrupt order is explicated in the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality. “Man was born free, equal, self-sufficient, unprejudiced, and whole; now, at the end of history, he is in chains (ruled by other men or by laws he did not make), defined by relations of inequality (rich or poor, noble or commoner, master or slave), dependent, full of false opinions or superstitions, and divided between his inclinations and his duties. Nature made man a brute, but happy and good” (Bloom 1979:3).

Return of John Locke is overtly visible in J.S. Mill in respect of knowledge creation and the state help. He remains hesitant about government led assistance and extension to educational institutional. “An education established and controlled by the State, should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence ” (Mill 2003: 167).

Many have countered the de-decentring tendency of first phase and second phase and it paved the way for the third phase. In fact, third phase is the phase of commencement of revolutionary claim over foundational knowledge by, inter alia, Karl Marx, Jotirao Phule and B.R. Ambedkar. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Communist Manifesto explain societal and educational relationship. “The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class” (Marx and Engels 1999:107). In a speech on General Education for General Council Meetings of International Workingmen’s Association 1869, Marx stated two roles: changing social circumstances to produce desired foundational knowledge and production of foundational knowledge to change the social circumstances.

...there was a peculiar difficulty connected with this question [on education]. On the one hand a change of social circumstances was required to establish a proper system of education, on the other hand a proper system of education was required to bring about a change of social circumstances; we must therefore commence where we were (Small 2005:39).

Concordant with Marx’s concern, Lenin conceives of education as “one of the component parts of the struggle we are now waging” (Tomaik 2005:41). “We say that our work in the sphere of education is part of the struggle for overthrowing the bourgeoisie. We publicly declare that education divorced from life and politics is lies and hypocrisy” (Small 2005: 159). Aptly describing the significance of education, Lenin elaborates its significance in following words:

The working people are thirsting for knowledge because they need it to win. Nine out of ten of the working people have realised that knowledge is a weapon in their struggle for emancipation, that their failures are due to lack of education, and that now it is up to them really to give everyone access to education. Our cause is assured because the people have themselves set about building a new, socialist Russia. They are learning from their own experience, from their failures and mistakes, and they see how indispensable education is for the victorious conclusion of their struggle (Lenin 1978: 88).

In 1920, N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky elaborated the modus operandi of the university and foundational knowledge which according to them was “considered in the educational section of the party programme” (Bukharin and Preobrazhensky 1969: 290). In the university “all distinction between professors and students will have disappeared…[Recruitment of staffs will be take place] to effect the necessary revolution in the teaching of the social sciences, and will be able to expel bourgeois culture from its last refuge. Furthermore, the composition of the audiences will be changed, for most of the students will be workers, and of course in this way technical science will pass into the possession of the working class. But the attendance of the workers at the universities will necessarily involve their maintenance at the cost of the State throughout the period of instruction” (ibid). This was a vital contribution on accessibility and universality of fundamental knowledge when emergence of “specialised vocational schools, in which the pupil’s destiny and future activity are determined in advance” (Gramsci 2007:27), were taking place.

In India, education as a sphere of praxis whereby theoretical and practical struggle could take place is clearly visible in Jotirao Phule, Savitribai Phule and Ambedkar along with others. In fact, Jotirao Phule and Savitribhai Phule started the first girl school in India at Pune. Ambedkar’s famous normative remark is itself a telling aspect: educate, organize and agitate . Ambedkar founded Depressed Classes Education Society (1928) and People’s Education Society (1945). Ambedkar posits a question that “[w]hy need the Shudra bother to take to education, when there is the Brahmin to whom he can go when the occasion for reading or writing arises?” (Ambedkar 2006:281). His straightaway answer is “… [i]nterdependence of one class on another class is inevitable. Even dependence of one class upon another may sometimes become allowable. But why make one person depend upon another in the matter of his vital needs? Education everyone must have. Means of defence everyone must have” (ibid 282). Concerning foundational knowledge, he points that “[h]igher education in India is the monopoly of Hindus and particularly of high Caste Hindus. By reason of Untouchability the Untouchables are denied the opportunity for Education” (Ambedkar 1990:417).

To break the monopoly over higher education, his four fold suggestions are: “(1) Governments—Union and State—shall be required to assume financial responsibility…(2) The responsibility for finding money for secondary and college education of the Scheduled Castes in India shall be upon the State Governments and the different States shall make a provision in their annual budgets for the said purpose in proportion to the population of the Scheduled Castes to the total budget of the States; (3) The responsibility for finding money for foreign education of the Scheduled Castes shall be the responsibility of the Union Government ; (4) These special grants shall be without prejudice to the right of the Scheduled Castes to share in the expenditure incurred by the State Government for the advancement of primary education for the people of the State” (Ambedkar 1979: 403).

The challenge to de-decentring tendency has been not only a challenge to foundational knowledge (acquiring and disseminative) but also to reconstruction of material and social sphere. The pursuance of foundational knowledge herein becomes pursuance of democratic order wherein centralisation of foundational knowledge is resisted and a more harmonious, egalitarian and accessible knowledge production is envisaged. There are four aspects: dissent, struggle, construction and purposive venture. The dissenting aspect evinces uncomfortableness with prevalent form of foundational knowledge and thereby struggling against it. This aspect is complied with germination of foundational knowledge and its utility towards transformation.

Indian State, De-decentring Tendency and Market

The independence of India and circumstantial phenomena of few centuries forced the Indian state to rupture with various ancient-medieval practices. The rupture is always contingent upon intensity of alternative forces. Wherever and whenever alternative forces became successful, rupture from the ancient-medieval practices has been sharp. Normative claim over the state by deprived sections is one of such ruptures. Despite overt exhibition of caste and class character, normative claim over the state is contested. This has dual purposes. First, claims force heterogeneous ruling echelons to respond to it; response may be for the purpose of legitimacy or outcome of inner struggle amongst ruling echelons. Second, claim is also a form of struggle to intensify mobilisation for immediate and long-lasting causes. Claim over foundational knowledge in association with the state’s help must also be understood through these concerns.

The claim over foundational knowledge in India and the Indian state response has been an outcome of insatiable normative struggle. The exclusivity of foundational knowledge and its utility are hallmarks on India’s landscape. Production, consumption and petrifying aspect of foundational knowledge sustained an era of monolithic exploitation. The political economy and sociology of ancient-medieval era demonstrate categorically the nature of production, consumption and exclusivist possession of foundational knowledge. The modern time promises certain respite. This is due to crumbling of ancient-medieval virtue and arrival of struggle and changing nature of the base.

After Independence, struggling and alternative forces realised the significance and signification of foundational knowledge. The pressing aspect was to force the state to venture into it. Though outcome has not been satisfactory as envisaged, nevertheless claim remains as important aspect for the state to prove its legitimacy before the people. Indian state’s role has been exhibited through opening of higher institutions and providing opportunity to deprived sections. As of now, there are 42 central universities. The pioneer agency is the University Grant Commission (UGC), which is meant for coordination, determination, maintenance of standards and release of grants. Along with it, there are fourteen other professional councils: All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), Medical Council of India (MCI), Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), Dental Council of India (DCI), Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), Indian Nursing Council (INC), Bar Council of India (BCI), Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH), Central Council for Indian Medicine (CCIM), Council of Architecture (CA), Distance Education Council (DEC), Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) and Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). These professionals council are responsible for recognition of courses, promotion of professional institutions and providing grants to undergraduate programmes and various awards. According to constitutional provision, education is in the concurrent list, entry number 66. It provides exclusive legislative power to the Centre in terms of overarching role over these institutions. The role of the state governments is also important. They account for 265 State Universities. The state governments are responsible for initiation of state universities, colleges, state council of higher education and grants.

Put differently, these institutions are product of a claim by the struggling people. It does not mean that they are perfectly working in tune with the philosophy of claim for foundational knowledge. In fact, eulogisation should be desisted. Nonetheless, outcome in the form of universities and institutions for foundation knowledge and materialisation of its twin objectives (acquisition and dissemination) cannot be dismissed or negated squarely. One must remember the context. The Indian context has always been detrimental and discriminatory, based on class-caste-patriarchal tenets concerning foundational knowledge. Therefore, this was no lesser achievement albeit an unsatisfactory one.

A fortiori, mission for the foundational knowledge has been abortive. This could have been taken further. A further jolt for this has come from acceptance and implementation of neo-liberal project. Explicitly, there is an assault on the claim. Concerning claim, opportunity of acquiring and disseminating foundation knowledge has been weakening due to market led suzerainty. Marked led suzerainty contravenes the claim principle and promotes asymmetrical relation resulting in de-decentring tendency once again.

After contravening claim principle, market led suzerainty harps on two-pronged strategy, which is visible in India: appropriation of the state’s foundational knowledge and monopolisation of foundational knowledge. Both strategies had led to the accumulation and pauperisation simultaneously in respect of foundational knowledge. Appropriation of state led foundational knowledge and thereafter its monopolisation is visible in the sphere of science and applied sciences. The recent tendency clearly points out four trends in India: (a) individuated research in the sphere of sciences; (b) commoditisation of research; (c) surplus accumulation and (d) distanciation of fruits. The individuated research in sciences has been promoted at the cost of collectivity. Individual based project, association and collaboration with private capital in the camouflaged name of public-private-partnership (PPP) has produced a particular kind of research. The identification and exploration have been dictated under the terms of

and patent nomenclature. For individuals, identification of problem rests on the viability of patent and sponsorship. The most desired areas wherein research could take place are bypassed. The outcome of research gets commodified, enhancing the private partnership and individuals located in the state run institutions. This of course leads to accumulation on the basis of foundational knowledge. Thereby fruits are withheld from the people.

Put more precisely, four areas could be identified wherein appropriation of foundational knowledge has taken place through campus selection, partnership and investment. They are ‘Technology’, ‘Medical Services’, ‘Commerce’ and ‘Agricultural Sphere’. The de-decentring tendency in form of appropriation in these four spheres has strengthened the expansion of private companies and monopolisation of resources. For example, before 1991, various kinds of research in previously mentioned spheres was confined and rested with Governments and principally utility was meant for the people.

Post 1991 era has shown the new scale of appropriation and expansion of companies. The biggest beneficiaries of erstwhile and present science research are Reliance, Tata, and Airtel in telecommunication; Wipro and Infosys in software; Fortis, Apollo, Max Health Care in medical sciences; financial conglomerates of commerce related higher education (MBA, CA, CS, ICWA and Research) and recently in Agriculture, Monsanto and Dow.

Concerning agricultural aspect, Agriculture Institutions and Universities were earlier engaged with the development of hybrid and High Yielding Varieties. In this regard, the National Seed Corporation was set up. The Seeds Act was passed in 1966 to regulate the growing seed industry. This led to production of various varieties and food sufficiency. The new seed policy in 1988 led to the emergence of interventionist aspect by MNCs. Now seeds are not public property but “intellectual property” of MNCs. Monsanto, Du Pont, Mitsui, Syngenta, Aventis and Dow control 98% of the world seed market and in India too MNCs directly or indirectly control a major share of the seed market. These companies also have monopoly over pesticides. Now, IARI and ICAI along with other agricultural research institutes have collaborated with giant seed companies and are siphoning out the resources to them. The Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA) is another justification of monopoly of Monsanto, which is also on the KIA Board. Monsanto has signed an agreement with ICAR to control Bt Brinjal (All India Kisan Sabha 2010).

De-decentring philosophy in the sphere of social science and applied social sciences has adhered through three ways. The first is creation of agencies. In other words, dominant social sciences have become agencies in three forms: pedagogical masculinity, pedagogical casteism and pedagogical class. Various researches have proved the presence of three aspects prevalent in social sciences. Social sciences despite being agencies create subject in form of particular shaping. Along with this, learners and practitioners of social sciences are being perceived as laid off sphere. This creates another dimension that is annulment of praxis. Social sciences are made deliberately redundant to avoid praxis. For this purposes, less grants are recurring phenomenon. Furthermore, there are two kinds of attempts: (a) construction and promotions of social scientists by insulating text from practices; and (b) endorsement of social scientists who are responding to the reality of ‘other real’ thereby negating the original real. This leads to creation of utility based comprehension of social sciences which have following features: ‘Insulation of history’, ‘Insulation of theory’, ‘social sciences as administered tool: introduction of courses to suit the administering needs’, ‘collection of mere empirical subjects’ and ‘appointments of social scientists as administrative heads rather as transformative agents’.

The monopoly of foundational knowledge has been attempted vigorously. This is visible in form of 79 private universities and foreign universities as proposed by the Foreign University Entry and Operation Bill. This has been reinforced by Punnaya Committee (UGC, 1993), Swaminathan Committee (AICTE, 1994) Birla-Ambani Report on the Policy Framework for Reforms in Education (2000) and the Foreign University Entry and Operation Bill (2010). In social sciences construction of particular epistemological realm has become rampant in form of big industrialist houses led think tanks, institutes funded by agencies, prioritising their epistemological construction by the state and ruling echelons over alternative epistemologies.

In Lieu of Conclusions

The best possible way to counter the de-decentring tendency is to reinvigorate the claim principle. It would on the one side resist the appropriation and monopolisation of foundational knowledge in the hands of ruling echelons and on the other, it could restore the claim over foundation knowledge in terms of acquisition (epochal analysis, contemporaneous analysis and vision certitude) and dissemination. The claim for foundation knowledge is extremely vital for transformation especially of higher education, collectivisation of science research, promotion of social science as transformative agents through adherence of plurality and reality, ‘de-caste’, ‘de-class’ and ‘de-patriarchy’ values.

References

All India Kisan Sabha (2010) : Commission Paper On Seed Monopolies, Genetically Modified Crops and Bt Brinjal, 32nd All India Conference, Guntur, January 7-10.

Ambedkar, B.R. (1979): “States and Minorities: What are Their Rights and How to Secure them in the Constitution of Free India” in Vasant Moon (ed) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches: Volume 1 (Bombay: De-partment of Education Publication, Government of Maharashtra).

Ambedkar, B.R. (1990): “Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of the Untouchables” in Vasant Moon (ed.) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches: Volume 9 (Bombay: Department of Education Publication, Government of Maharashtra).

Ambedkar, B.R. (2006): “Annihilation of Caste” in Valerian Rodrigues (ed) The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).

Aristotle (1984): “Book VII” in Jonathan Barnes (ed) The Complete Works of Aristotle Books VII and VII, translated by Benjamin Jowett ( Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Bloom, Allan (1979): “Introduction” in Allan Bloom (ed) Emile or On Education (New York: Basic Books).

Bukharin, Nicholas I. and Preobrazhensky, Evgenii A. (1969): The ABC of Communism (Baltimore: Penguin Books).

Burnet, John (1980): Aristotle on Education: Extracts from the Ethics and Politics (Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge).

Curren, Randall (2007): Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Eze, Emmanuel Chukwudi (2001): Race and the Enlightenment: A Reader (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).

Gramsci, Antonio (2007): “On Education” in Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (ed) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Hyderabad: Orient Longman).

Habib, Irfan (2000): Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perspective ( New Delhi: Tulika).

Kant, Immanuel (1994): “Transition from Popular Moral Philosophy to a Metaphysics of Morals” in Immanuel Kant Ethical Philosophy: Grounding for the Meta-physics of Morals, Metaphysical Principles of Virtue (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company).

Kosambi, D.D. (1996): An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (Mumbai: Popular Prakashan).

Lenin. V.I. (1978): “Speech at the First All-Russia Congress on Education” in Collected Works Volume 28 ( London: Lawrence & Wishart).

Locke, John (1996): “Of the Conduct of the Understanding” in John Locke et al (eds) Some Thoughts concerning Education and Of the Conduct of the Understand-ing (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc).

Lodge, Rupert Clendon and Frank, Solomon (2000): Plato’s Theory of Education (London: Routledge).

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1999): “The Manifesto of Communist Party” in Prakash Karat (ed) A World to Win: Essays on the Communist Manifesto (New Delhi: LeftWord).

Mill, John Stuart (2003): On Liberty (London: Yale University Press).

Plato (1970): Plato: the Laws (London: Penguin Classics).

Plato (2003): The Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Rousseau, Jean Jacques (1979): “Book I” in Jean Jacques Rousseau Emile or On Education (New York: Basic Books).

Small, Robin (2005): Marx and Education (Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing).

Tomaik, J.J. (1974): “Fifty-five years of Soviet Education: The Grandeur of the Vision and the Might of Reality- United, Separated or Forever Divorced?” in T.G. Cook (ed) The History of Education in Europe (London: Methuen & Co Ltd.).

[Part of this paper was presented for Politics Education: Higher Education in India – Context & Concerns (Focus on Madhya Pradesh), a National Seminar organised by School of Studies in Political Science & Public Administration, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, March 19 & 21, 2010. I am thankful to Prof. Manindra Nath Thakur, Prof.Dharmendra Kumar and Rityusha for their critical inputs.]