The Vision and Reality of University: The Asian Context

T.K. Oommen

Let me begin by making two general remarks. Although we are discussing only Asia, the situation is so heterogeneous within Asia that hardly any generalization is possible. Any yet, it is necessary to make a few observations about the region as a whole. I would also like to express my appreciation for the manner in which the theme of the consultation is phrased. The distinction between ideal and actual structures is one of the most useful and vital tools of analysis in any society, any time, any where. Yet, being so obvious and humble a distinction most of us neglect or overlook its importance. In discussing the vision as well as the reality of the university in the Asian context this consultation squarely recognizes the importance of the ideal and the actual.

In understanding and analysing the role of university education in the Asian context we must situate the university in terms of its historicity and in terms of its relationship with other contemporary structures. I will only deal with one element from each of these contexts — colonialism and the state — elements to my mind which are of crucial importance.

Asian societies are old but Asian states are new. Most of the Asian countries are ex-colonial societies. Modern universities were implanted in Asia by the colonial rulers and they embodied Western values. Most nationalist movements were led by Asians with Western education. The notions of nationalism, socialism, secularism and democracy are Western in origin. These ideas were perceived as modernist, progressive and forward looking. Yet the West and its institutions were suspect, desacralized and rejected during the colonial phase. The simultaneous acceptance of and ambivalence to Western ideas need to be examined. What are the prevalent arguments? Are they valid?

Firstly, it is argued that colonialism created a dualism through a Western oriented elite and high concentration of investment of scarce resources for their training on the one hand and a total neglect of the education of the under-privileged on the other. On the face of it the argument appears to be sound. But it is important to remember that there was a pre-colonial elite which was perhaps more distant and different in its life-style from the people. The new elite at least had a

broader social base of recruitment. The real problem with colonialism was not that it produced an elite but that it inculcated and perpetuated the feeling that everything Western or European was superior. The elites of independent Asian countries perpetuate this value system.

Second, while blaming colonialism for our present ills we must remember that even countries which did not experience colonialism directly (for example Nepal and Thailand) have very similar educational problems as those countries which experienced colonialism. Third, in the long history of Asian societies colonialism itself was of a short period, usually less than a couple of centuries. The post-colonial phase now span nearly half-a-century at least in some cases. No basic change is in evidence in our universities in spite of the half century nationalist rule. Thus our attack on colonialism for our current ills at least partly seems to be a rationalization of our incapacities. This calls for an urgent and serious collective self-introspection.

Fourth, the domestic policy of colonial countries itself was elite oriented until after World War II. The concept of welfare state definitionaby oriented to the middle and lower classes is of a recent origin. In most European countries barely 10 percent went to secondary and 3 percent to tertiary levels of education before World War 11. Fifth, a wide variety of policies and approaches have been pursued by the colonizers - English, French, Dutch - and each one of them pursued different policies in different colonies. Further, in the same colony the policy changed over a period of time. To put all these cases in the same category is to create analytical anarchy totally ignoring empirical variations, although of course, it might be useful as a ploy to mobilize peoples of colonized countries.

Sixth, colonialism created plural societies and nation-building is very much an unfinished task in the Asian context. The basis of nationstate is radically different in Asia as compared to Europe. In the new nations of Asia the cultural imperialism of mainstream communities, economic exploitation by the native bourgeoisie in conjunction and collusion with an international bourgeoisie, political oppression by the dominant political groups — either authoritarian regimes or one party democracies — marginalizes a vast humanity. The question that is frequently asked is, who is the enemy rather than what the enemy does. In terms of the latter hardly any difference exists between the colonial rulers and the national elites. We seem to tolerate the atrocities of the national elite and, when the same or even less milder acts are done by non-nationals we rind it abhorrent. Why is this so? At least part of the reason is to be found in the over-arching importance, the great sway, political nationalism has in the contemporary world.

Currently it is argued by radicals from the West and Asian countries that the Asian universities are victims of neocolonialism. The argument,

short of its embellishments runs as follows. The original assumption that political freedom would emancipate the colonized countries from the economic clutches of the imperialist powers was naive and simplistic Economic domination and consequently cultural subservience of Asian countries continues. Academic colonialism is but one manifestation of the cultural subservience of the Asian countries to the West and it is perpetuated through the modern educational system. More than that, the Third World intellectuals are characterized as 'captive' or 'colonized minds. The 'intimate enemy' of neocolonialism is omnipresent. It is asserted that colonialism begins in the minds of men and it can be ended only there. Let us look at the facts and the logic of that argument.

First, it is true that the colonial phase witnessed the imposition of the Western languages and values. But it also led to the development of local languages, introduction of printing press and very often several of the dialects got their alphabet and some of the languages got their grammer codified during the colonial phase due to the efforts of altruistic persons. To consider these as motivated acts to perpetuate cultural imperialism of the West does not stand to reason.

Second, Western education has often been the cradle of national liberation movements. It has been systematically used for accelerating socioeconomic development. Above all, Western education has been an instrument of national integration, particularly in culturally plural societies.

Third, the argument that university education in Asia simply re-produces persons who replicate and reinforce the values of the West is only partially correct. The critics of the West also are largely the products of these universities; they get their sensitivity through exposure to university education. With all the criticisms against Western knowledge the elites in Asia are unwilling to reject it. The Western education gives them the power over and a sense of separation from the masses and hence an important instrument of perpetuating their dominance.

Fourth, even the critics of neocolonialism practice it with alacrity. Consider for example, the language they speak, the books they read and quote, the publishing they do, the foreign degrees they hanker after, the employment they seek etc. In one sense radicalism has become a big resource to get accepted in appropriate contexts. Fifth, to argue that Asians are eternal victims of academic colonialism of the West is to deny any intellectual autonomy to them; it denigrates them as mere receivers of knowledge and creatures of history. This is only a half truth. Man, the Asian man included, is as much a creator as he is a creature. We must also note here that the Western academic entrepreneur produces what is relevant for his context. Of course as his industrial counterpart, he too wants to sell his product but he cannot impose it on his potential buyer. That is to say, the existence of Western academic entrepreneurs

will not ensure the perpetuation of neocolonialism. it is only when he is obliged by the willing buyer from Asia that he can continue his intellectual dominance.

Finally, the prescription to escape from neocolonialism is often nationalism, that is, academic nationalism. In the Asian context nationstates are not yet settled entities; they are characterised by frayed edges and loose textures. Therefore to be a nationalist in the contemporary Asian context is an extremely difficult preposition for two reasons. It means to support the value system of the mainstream community and/or to support the State and the government. Paradoxically, these are the very structures which perpetuate structural and physical violence.

This brings me to the second factor which I listed at the very outset in situating the university in the Asian context namely the role of the State. Almost everywhere in the world, and more so in Asia, university education is financed, controlled and managed by the state. Universities constitute an important element in the promotion of the ideological State apparatus. But, we must remember that the mergence of nation States in Asia and the crystallization of the notions of socialist and welfare States coincided. State is no more a mere agent of law and order but it is also an agency which inspires and institutionalizes change. By definition, it is the protector of weaker sections in society and not infrequently it is the final arbiter in disputes between different sections within the society. Therefore, conceptualizing university as a countervailing power to the state is no more a valid exercise. The State has substantial legitimacy in several contexts although paradoxically it is also an instrument of oppression. It is this dual character of the State which poses problems to our understanding and analysis.

Second, precisely because education is an important ideological State apparatus, what is being imparted through the universities is often designated as 'national values'. And yet a moments reflection would unfold that what is being labeled as national values are nothing but the values of the cultural mainstream, usually constituted by the dominant religious and or linguistic collectivities. That is, in the name of nationalism what is being perpetuated is the dominance of mainstream communities rendering a vast humanity of minority groups mere marginal collectivities. And universities are important instruments of perpetuating this domination.

We should evaluate the role of university education in Asia against this background - the over-arching influence of the State and the strong presence of neocolonialism. Conventionally education was viewed as a transmission-belt of societal values, an agent of social stability. This again is a perspective drawn from the West wherein modern secular universities emerged when the Western society was characterised by rapid social change brought about by the industrial revolution. Faced

with substantial spatial, social and ideational mobilities, the West at that time was to stabilize the system. In contrast, in universities were established when c0hange was desired and consciously pursued through political mobilization. Universities were often the vehicles to accelerate the on-going process of social transformation. But soon it was realized that the goal of change pursued by the university was ill-at-ease with the genius of the people, the vast peasantry in the countryside. The question of relevance of knowledge was raised and universities started fighting the crisis of irrelevance in Asian higher education. Pursuantly, high quality and relevant education came to be perceived as co-terminus.

Compounding the situation was the revolution of rising expectations and the expanding social catchment area of university education. University education no more remained the monopoly of a traditional aristocracy as in colonial times but a bulging middle class started becoming its major clientele. Consequently education today is viewed as an instrument of mobility and not simply a symbol of prestige. Universities became highly heterogeneous in composition — the social and economic background of teachers and students got diversified and the nature of their aspirations got re-defined. Universities became a breeding ground for protest and violence. But this was directed against an internal enemy unlike during the colonial era, which in turn raised issues relating to legitimacy of means vis-à-vis end. Thus contemporary universities are a countervailing power to the establishment as well as a supportive structure to the state. Therefore, the role of university, particularly in Asia, cannot be seem in either or terms but should be posited as one of promoting an appropriate mix of values.

Presently, I shall list five major roles of universities keeping the above considerations in mind.

1. Promoting Tradition and Modernity

The current tendency is either to endorse tradition in its entirety in the name of nationalism which often leads to revivalism or fundamentalism, rejecting modernity. On the other hand, we also have the impending anxiety to modernize societies in total to catch up with the West assuming that all that is modern is progressive and rational, rejecting that which is traditional as irrational. To my mind, tradition is at once an asset and a liability. It needs enormous ingenuity to retain the assets and reject the liabilities in tradition. Similarly, we have to do the same exercise in regard to modernity. In other words, what we need to do is to retain the appropriate elements both from tradition and modernity; our strategy should be one of selective retention of the old and cautious acceptance of the new.

2. Promoting Nationalism and Humanism

The most 'dominant human association today is the nation-state. Nationalism as an ideology is overwhelming, patriotism as a value is universally acclaimed and martyrdom as an act is highly appreciated. Yet as I have indicated earlier what is often designated as nationalism is nothing but the primordial collectivism of the dominant community within the nation-state. The dominant communities are politically disenfranchised, economically exploited, and culturally marginalized. The casuality here is nothing short of humanism. Universities have the responsibility to promote not only nationalism but also basic human values, that is humanism. In this endeavour the university should stand up for the wretched of the earth.

3. Supporting and Opposing The State

It is fashionable today to perceive the State as an instrument of oppression to the State. However, it is not a feasible conceptualization because universities are financed and controlled if not directly managed by the State. But this perspective is not also necessarily conceptually tenable because the nature of the State varies enormously across different nation-states. If indeed, a particular State is authoritarian and lacks legitimacy it should be opposed. But if a State is people-oriented and its class character is conducive to promote peoples' needs and aspirations, universities should support it. I am not suggesting that the latter type of States would not ever go astray. If indeed they do, universities should re-define their attitude towards them. Most States in contemporary Asia are so repressive that we cannot even think in terms of supporting them. But this empirical reality should not be permitted to shape our vision about and relationship with the State forever.

4. Promoting People Orientation and Undertaking Elite Training

I have heard it said ad infinitum that, universities should be people oriented. If the statement only means that universities should gear their activities to promote people's welfare it is only a statement of the obvious. It is important to remind ourselves that universities cannot be by their very nature anti-elitist; they are the wombs out of which elites emerge, they are the factories where elites are manufactured. And, all societies need elites. That is, persons who occupy important positions in society irrespective of the nature of rewards accorded to them. All that we can insist is that the recruitment base of the elite should be broad, sufficiently representative of the plural societal situation, both in terms of classes and primordial collectivities. Universities should train the elites the society needs, inculcating in them values conducive to social development and not simply personal upward mobility. That is, universities should

not be instruments of perpetuating elitism. To train a people-oriented elite and to perpetuate elitism are two qualitatively different goals.

5. Promoting Stability and Change

As I have already indicated the usual tendency is to view universities either as instruments of stability or as agents of change. I want to affirm with all the might at my disposal that universities have to perform both roles depending upon the social context. Universities should fight fundamentalism, obscurantism and irrational tendencies thereby promoting appropriate values and change. But rapid social charge brings within its trail enormous social problems — pre-marital pregnancy, drug addiciton, juvenile delinquency, senseless violence and terrorism are but symptoms of this. And we need to stabilize societies in order that these tendencies are curbed. Undoubtedly universities cannot be indifferent to these social problems. Admittedly then, universities should be instruments of stability and change simultaneously depending upon the issues involved and the direction in which the society moves.

Let me add a caveat and I am done.

Part of the problem in understanding and analysing the theme at hand lies in the mode of conceptualization imbedded in epistemological dualism. We are trained to think in dichotomies that is, in either or terms. The reality on the ground does not fit into this rigid scheme and compartmentalisation. We would do well in keeping this point of signal methodological significance while discussing the theme of our current attention namely the role of Universities in the Asian Context.

Thank you for your attention.