The CPIM’s opposition to the entry of foreign educational institutions into India is well known. A front page editorial in the latest People’s Democracy responds to a commerce ministry note on trade in educational services, saying it would be “dangerous for India” to provide access to foreign educational providers without first having a legal framework. The editorial points out that the CNR Rao committee had “cautioned against a hasty approach” on the entry of foreign educational institutions. HRD minstry had also prepared a draft legislation on the issue: “Unfortunately, vested interests are apparently succeeding in delaying this legislation.” On the need for a regulated entry, references are made to other countries. In Malaysia, such institutions must establish a Malaysian company with majority Malaysian ownership. In China entry is by invitation, and there must be partnership with Chinese institutions, established on a no-profit basis. “The whole concept of private universities must be abandoned in India in national interest,” the editorial advises.

Targets for transnationals

Taking up the case of workers in developed countries and arguing for equitable growth in India and China, economist C.P. Chandrasekhar writes in ‘Economic Notes’ that exports of hi-tech manufactured products from China and of software and IT-enabled services from India raise fears of the threat from these two countries — based on their “knowledge capital” base — to growth in the rest of the world, including developed countries. But, the two countries are only “important bases” for knowledge-based production of exportable goods and services of which the beneficiaries are the transnationals from the developed countries. The workers in these countries don’t benefit from this growth and fear job losses. In essence therefore, “it is not India and China that need to be feared by developed country citizens, but their own home grown transnationals who have taken wing,” says the author. While expansion of exports is accompanied by a high GDP growth rate in these countries, leading to a larger presence of India and China in the global economy, there lies a difference between “knowledge in” and “knowledge for” the production of goods and services. “While knowledge is being applied in production in these countries, the US still monopolises the control over knowledge.” India and China are “instruments of battle for transnationals.”

China’s human resource

When CPIM member Tapas Sinha, during his visit to China in August, asked leaders there whether a huge population was an impediment to development they “answered with a big smile” that the best resource in the world was human resource. “We use them in our development,” they told Sinha, who went to China as part of an Indian youth delegation from the UPA and Left parties. “What is important to remember here is that the foundation for such a remarkable growth has been laid by the revolution and the Communist Party which led it. Today the Chinese are brimming with self-confidence, self reliance and developing productivity with the full-hearted participation by the people,” writes Sinha. He refers to his visits to industrial zones where joint ventures and foreign companies were getting attracted along with nationalised companies, but the pre-requisite is that all products must be produced in China to boost employment. He sums up saying that China is experiencing faster growth economy, but not without problems; he doesn’t list them.

— Compiled by Ananda Majumdar