|
The School and the Community
Keynote Address by Prof. André Béteille
I have to being this address with an apology.
I am not expert or a specialist in the field of elementary
education. However, as a concerned citizen, I recognise its
great value as an end in itself, and as a sociologist, its
importance as a means to other ends, such as higher education
and many forms of gainful employment.
Indian society is still a highly stratified
society in which the channels of individual mobility are narrow
and restricted. In the modern world this state of affairs
is unhealthy from the economic as well as the political point
of view, but it cannot be remedied without massive advances
in education in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Elementary
education must not only be made available to all, but its
standard must be such that those who receive it are able to
put it to some use in subsequent phases of their lives.
It is well to remember that the idea that
all children, irrespective of class, community and gender,
should go to school and spend a minimum period of time in
it is a relatively new one, not only in India but in the world
as whole. Even in countries such as England, France and Russia
children of peasants and workers did not all go to school
as recently as in the 19th century. One has only to read the
novels of Dickens, Balzac and Tolstoy to realise how important
socially, economically and politically the division was between
the lettered and the unlettered. Effective participation of
all members of society in civic and political life had to
await the effacement of that division.
Universal elementary education does not do
away with all inequalities, but it does undermine some of
the most odious forms of social exclusion. While social stratification
continues to exist in Britain, France and other western countries,
the social and political significance of class division has
been reduced through increased individual mobility across
households and across communities. Inequalities in the distribution
of life chances are a reality, but so are high rates of individual
mobility. Universal elementary education is not a sufficient
condition for the changes experienced by the advanced countries
in the last hundred years, but it is a necessary condition
for them. Without education, for which elementary education
provides the base, the chances of individual mobility in a
class divided society are severely limited.
Top
This essential condition for a society to
take its place in the modern world remains unfulfilled in
India even sixty years after independence. The continuing
divide between those who enjoy the benefits of education and
those who have little or no access to it is perhaps the most
significant index of the backwardness of a nation in the 21st
century. As I have just pointed out, that divide was common
in many if not most countries of the world till the end of
the 19th century. But other countries, including Japan and
China, have moved ahead at an increasing pace whereas we have
just managed to crawl along.
There are many factors responsible for out
failure in the field of elementary education. Hierarchical
values and attitudes have been more deeply entrenched and
prevailed over a longer span of time in India than in any
other country in the world. These values and attitudes have
been particularly marked in the cultivation of learning which
was made the exclusive preserve of a small number of communities.
It was not simply a matter of there being not enough schools
but of rooted belief that learning from books was meant only
for a few and not for all. The conviction about their own
superior aptitude of the few at the top was matched by the
apathy and fatalism of the masses of people. Neither the sense
of inborn superiority nor the apathy and fatalism have fully
disappeared.
The hierarchical attitudes of the upper castes
were carried over into the new middle class that began to
emerge from the end of the 19th century. It was that class
which was, and still is, responsible for the development of
education in the country. While it paid up service to the
principle of equality, it created and administered institutions
for the education of it own children, leaving to their fate
the vast masses of children from the submerged strata of society.
The schools in the rural areas and even in the towns and cities
were few and far between, and they were generally of poor
and indifferent quality. The indifferent quality of such schools
reinforced the apathy towards education of the disadvantaged
classes and communities.
Despite the disappointingly slow pace of
change, things have not stood still in the last sixty years.
There have indeed been developments in the field of education,
but those developments have been highly uneven. The literacy
rate has risen, although the official reckoning of it in purely
formal terms leaves much to be desired. Through all the disorder,
inefficiency and venality of public life, new schools are
being established and additional provisions for their funding
made.
It is well to remember that the provision
of free and compulsory education for all children upto the
age of fourteen was made a directive principle of state policy
in the Constitution of India in 1950. More recently, it has
been decided to make it a fundamental right. This was done
in response to the widespread expression of public concern
over the poor state of education in the country. How far making
what was a matter of policy into a matter of right will be
itself change the horizon of opportunities and expectations
is difficult to foretell. But there is undoubtedly greater
awareness all around of the benefits of education and the
need to make those benefits available to all irrespective
of class, community and gender.
We are still in the early stages of building
a secure and dependable system of universal elementary education
in India. By a secure and dependable system of education I
mean one that is attentive not only to the numbers of school
entrants and school leavers but also to the kind of education
the schools are able to provide. There is no doubt that the
number of children in school is increasing and the financial
outlay on elementary education is also rising. On the other
hand, our knowledge of how elementary schools actually work
in different social settings is both very sketchy and very
patchy. I will later stress, at an appropriate place, the
need to undertake more research, on a sustained basis, on
the ways in which schools of different kind operate as social
institutions.
Going just by numbers in matters relating
to education, particularly in a society as highly differentiated
and stratified as ours, can be deceptive and misleading. Indian
society is divided into many classes and communities, and
it will be unrealistic to presume that those divisions will
not cast their shadows on the schools where elementary education
is provided. There are elementary schools in the metropolitan
cities to which the educated professional classes send their
children with a strong sense of how well they can prepare
them for their passage through secondary and higher education.
Other schools are poorly or very poorly endowed with teachers
who are ill-trained and frequently absent, and where very
little teaching is done. In the broadest sense, stratification
among schools reflects stratification in the wider society,
and it is difficult to radically change the former without
some change taking place in the latter.
Top
Education does not eliminate social inequality.
It has not done so in any country, and it will be unrealistic
to expect it to do so in India in the near or even the distant
future. But it can and should eliminate the more extreme forms
of it and reduce its rigours by enlarging the possibilities
of individual mobility. A society that encourages and promotes
individual mobility is not a society that has done away with
social stratification, but it is closer to the ideals of democracy
than one which is both hierarchical and resistant to individual
mobility.
Modern education has a certain formal organization
that cannot be wished away, no matter how greatly we deplore
its excesses. A certain degree of formal organization became
inescapable as the demand for education became more widespread,
not to say universal. In the past and until quite recently,
only a few went to school while the rest received such education
as they could from the home or the community or some other
agency. Now, what is true of every institution is that, while
it provides certain facilities, it also imposes certain constraints,
and the school as an institution is no exception to this rule.
As education became more institutionalized,
it also became more rule bound. Such rules may be more rigid
or more flexible, but in every case they must correspond to
the aims and objectives of the institutions they seek to govern.
It would be unreasonable to regulate a primary school by rules
that may be appropriate to a secondary school, just as it
would be inappropriate to regulate a university by rules for
regulating the conduct of both teachers and students in a
secondary school. The conditions of access to a primary school
cannot be the same as those to a university. Those who point
to the linkages between primary, secondary and higher education
sometimes overlook the obvious fact that different educational
institutions are entrusted with different tasks and, hence,
they cannot all be regulated by a single set of rules.
In the modern world, elementary education
is the point of entry into a vast and complex institutional
system that has many grades and levels. It will be generally
agreed that elementary education should be available to all,
and that every child, boy or girl, should find a place in
an elementary school. I must repeat that this is a modern
viewpoint that has made its way into the world only since
the middle or even the end of the 19th century. Even at the
time of independence the majority of children in the relevant
age group were out of school in India. We have made some progress
since then but, given our material and intellectual resources,
that progress leaves much to be desired.
We adopted the principle of universal elementary
education at the time of independence and wrote it into the
Constitution of India. As I have already noted, it is now
not just a matter of policy but also a matter of right. Making
admission to elementary school universal means that there
should be no discrimination in the matter of admission on
the basis of caste, creed or gender, or on the basis of ability
or performance. It is generally acknowledged that tests of
scholastic aptitude are inappropriate and should be dispensed
within admissions to the first level of the educational system
although such tests cannot be avoided for admission to college
or a university.
Although the principle of universal elementary
education was adopted at the time of independence, there were
not enough schools in the country at that time to which all
children could be admitted. This was true not only of the
remote rural areas but also of many towns and cities. I do
not wish to go into the story of our failure to build new
schools on the scale required in the early years of independence.
We left too much in the hands of the government, and the government
did not do enough.
There has been a considerable increase in
the number of elementary schools in the last couple of decades
although there are not enough of them even now to provide
for all. The increase in the number of schools has been accompanied
by a differentiation of quality and standard. Official statistics
dwell on the increase in numbers as, indeed, they should;
they tell us very little about variations in what is taught
and how it is taught even at the point of entry into the educational
system. Yet a close examination of these variations is indispensable
if we are to understand how disparities in ability and performance
increase and intensify as students move upwards from one stage
to the next in the educational system. Those whose education
in elementary school has been deficient fare badly at higher
levels of education where tests of ability and performance
are indispensable. It is wrong to expect those who have been
taught poorly, or not at all, in elementary school to perform
adequately in tests of admission to the university, and then
to attribute their failure to the social prejudices of the
professors.
Top
Differentiation and stratification within
the educational system are features of all large and complex
modern societies. We know a great deal about the ways in which
they operate in countries such as England, France and the
United States (Devine 2004;Boudon 1974; Jencks et al 1979),
but very little about their actual operation in India. One
can say on the basis of a general understanding of human societies
that they are likely to be more extreme in India then elsewhere.
As I have said, ours is a highly stratified society marked
by extremes of inequality in the distribution of life chances
among individuals and households. It will be unrealistic to
expect that educational institutions in India can be insulated
from the inequalities that permeate the rest of society.
I would like to emphasize that differentiation
and stratification in education are present at the very point
of entry into the system, at the level of the primary school
itself. Educated parents have become increasingly conscious
of the need to monitor the school work of their children so
that their passage through the successive levels of the system
is smooth and easy. Educators may inveigle against applying
pressure for scholastic achievement at such an early age,
but middle-class parents often have other ideas for their
children. In an increasing number of urban middle-class homes
the grooming for scholastic success begins even before admission
to primary school.
There is now large and expanding middle class
not only in the major metropolitan cities but also in the
smaller urban centres. There was a middle class even sixty
years ago, but it was relatively small and its expansion slow.
Things have changed substantially in the last couple of decades.
A defining feature of the middle class today is its keen appreciation
of the opportunities for upward mobility. It wants advancement
for itself through education and professional employment,
and it will pay any price to secure that advancement for its
children. Anyone who has had anything to do with education
will know that members of the emerging middle class are prepared
to do to secure admission in a good school for their children
right at the point of entry.
Until the time of independence there was
perhaps less anxiety among parents over the education of their
children, and it was confined to a small section of the middle
class whose members belonged mainly to handful of upper castes.
Today the education of children with a view to planning their
future careers has become a concern with growing numbers of
manual workers in the organized sector. Large public sector
undertakings have schools for the children of their employees,
and these schools act as important channels of upward mobility.
Those who work in offices and factories want not only schools
but good schools for their offspring. If a manual worker happens
to work in the Bhilai Steel Plant or with a Reliance company,
he may be able to secure better schooling for his children
than a clerk or even a school teacher in a provincial town.
By better schooling I mean here the kind of schooling that
makes entry into the more coveted institutions of higher education
relatively easy.
Not all manual workers are employed in the
organized sector. In fact, the majority of them work outside
that sector. There the prospects for the schooling of children
are very different. For the vast masses of migrant workers
and other workers in casual employment, living from hand to
mouth and moving from one job to another, education in a good
school or, for that matter, in any sort of school is not within
easy reach. They lack not only the material resources but
even the information and the aspiration that are spreading
across all levels of the middle class and into the organized
working class. Differences in resources, perceptions and aspirations
correspond to unequal life chances among parents, and generate
unequal life chances for their children.
There has been in increase in public concern
over elementary education in the last ten or fifteen years.
There is greater awareness of the price being paid for past
neglect and gathering enthusiasm for doing what was not done
in the early phase of independence. My sense is that the enthusiasm
is driven by a certain measure of wishful thinking about what
can be done to establish equality of opportunity in elementary
education here and now, and in secondary and higher education
in the short run. Our plans and projects are unlikely to bear
fruit if we wish out of existence the reality and obduracy
of social divisions in India and in particular the divisions
of class based on wealth, employment, occupation, income and
education.
How we address issues of social policy depends
in some measure on how we look at social reality. There are
two contrastive perspectives on society that are commonly
encountered in our country. The first I will refer to as the
‘fatalistic’ and the second as the ‘utopian’
perspective. The fatalistic perspective is based on the presumption
that things are as they are because that is how they have
always been and that is how they will continue to be; the
utopian perspective, on the other hand, presumes that any
desirable state of affairs can be brought into being provided
people with the necessary good will are prepared to bring
it into being.
The utopian and the fatalistic orientations
are not characteristic of two distinct and separate sets of
persons. They are often found in alternate phases in one and
the same individual. Where the utopian expectations are extravagant
and unrealizable, they are likely to be frustrated and followed
by a fatalistic turn of mind. In that sense there is a kind
of natural affinity between the utopian and the fatalistic
dispositions. In contrast with the fatalistic or the utopian
orientation is the pragmatic orientation which does not accept
the existing reality as unchangeable, but also does not pursue
programmes of change that wish the constraints of the real
world out of existence.
Top
The Idea that a school system can be designed
in such a way that every school will have material, pedagogical
and other resources to provide education of the same quality
and standard to every pupil is not a workable one from the
policy point of view in a country like India. A school system,
if it is properly designed, can do something to reduce the
inequalities of life chances among persons. It cannot dismantle
at one stroke-or even through a succession of Five Year Plans
– all the accumulated inequalities of a hierarchical
society with which people have lived more or less comfortably
for two thousand years.
It may be useful of consider very briefly
what it takes to dismantle the entire structure of inequality
in education and society. The Chinese example has some lessons
for us in this regard. During the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution of 1966-76, the Chinese did succeed to a large
extent in dismantling the established hierarchies in education,
but the success was achieved only by paying an enormous price
in social dislocation and human suffering. Indians who look
forward to the kind of revolutionary transformation the Chinese
underwent do not ponder sufficiently on the costs that it
entailed. And inequalities in the Chinese educational system
did not disappear but only went underground to come out into
the open once again.
Education can and should be put to the service
of creating a better society, but our approach should be realistic.
It undoubtedly contributes to the removal of many odious distinctions
and it creates channels for individual mobility (Erickson
and Glodthorpe 1993). But education also contributes to the
reproduction of inequality, and that fact must not be lost
to sight (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). A great deal depends
on the structure of the society and the political environment
within which the educational system operates.
The first and most urgent priority should
be to put every child of the appropriate age into elementary
school and to provide for a sufficient number of elementary
schools that will have the basic material, social and cultural
resources required for decent education. This can be done
without agonizing about the quality and standard of elementary
education that rich and resourceful middle-class parents driven
by the ambition for upward mobility are able to buy for them
own children. In regard to both education and society, the
issue is not of attaining equality in every respect but of
eliminating extreme and egregious forms of material deprivation
and social exclusion.
We are too easily diverted by the rhetoric
of equality from solvable practical problems. Here I would
like to make distinction between equality and universality,
and make a strong case for the latter. Universality requires
that certain basic facilities and capabilities be placed within
the reach of every member of society without consideration
of individual merit or need; in short, that they be made universally
available. Obvious examples of what can and should be made
universally available are elementary education and primary
health care.
The educational system will generate its
own inequalities in due course of time. We may succeed in
regulating those inequalities up to a point, but we cannot
eradicate them. This is particularly true in a world in which
knowledge is advancing at an explosive rate. Even if we succeed
in creating equality of opportunity in the school, the college
or the university, we will fail to have equality of outcome.
If we strive to maintain uniformity of outcome, we will only
succeed in stifling effort, initiative and the pursuit of
excellence. All we can aim to do is to see that social advantage
does not translate too easily into scholastic advantage, and
that is by no means an easy thing to do.
There is no educational system that is not
embedded in a social system. In a society such as ours it
is inevitable that different schools will be endowed with
different, not to say unequal, material and pedagogic resources.
It is the obligation of the state and other public bodies
to see that no school falls below a certain level, to aid
and support those that have fallen behind and not pull back
those that are moving ahead. The philosophy of the Levellers
is not a good philosophy on which to build and educational
system.
It will be agreed by all that we need to
provide elementary education for all, that our record in this
respect has been rather poor so far, and that we must do a
great deal more to catch up with the rest of the world. But
who is to take the responsibility for doing what needs to
be done, that schools meeting the basic minimum requirements
of pedagogy are created and maintained? It is not simply a
matter of putting more money into education, it is also a
matter of creating functioning institutions in which teaching
and learning can take place. The government can provide the
funds, and the bureaucracy can see that the funds are properly
accounted for. But can the government and its bureaucracy
create and maintain the institutions that are indispensable
for teaching and learning? I am not speaking now of good or
bad schools from a scholastic point of view, but of the regularity
and routine of the everyday activities which are essential
to the life of any school as an institution.
Top
I cannot say much from personal knowledge
or experience of the health of our elementary schools are
institutions in which regular activities are performed according
to the clock and the calendar. There will obviously be a great
deal of variations across schools in different locations in
the different parts of the country. But even where the problems
of funding have been attended to, we cannot take the institutional
health of the school for granted. What little experience I
have had of higher education has made me realize that the
institutional life of the college or the university is politically
volatile but academically listless. In many such places very
little goes on. Attendance is irregular, classes are not held
according to the time table; examinations are delayed or disrupted;
and there is a general atmosphere of apathy and indifference
among both students and teachers.
We know next to nothing about the social
atmosphere in different types of elementary schools, whether
it is marked by good cheer, apathy, or sheer neglect all around.
Does the school appear to its pupils as something to be enjoyed
or merely endured? The statistics of teacher absenteeism provide
little comfort although, here again, there are bound to be
very large variations between schools of different types.
Statistics do not, in any case, tell the whole story. Teachers
may mark themselves present but actually do little for the
care of those put in their charge. I am told that there are
many schools, now even in semi-urban villages, where teachers
do most of their teaching outside the school as private tutors
or coaches for additional payment.
What the state and its agencies cannot be
expected to do in terms of social participation or regulation
can legitimately be expected of the community. Indeed, it
is difficult to see how an effective system of elementary
schools can be established and maintained without some involvement
from the local community. Wherever elementary schools have
worked well, they have done so because of the support of the
community.
There has been a waxing of enthusiasm for
the community in recent years, partly in response to the disenchantment
with the state and its agencies. I do not wish to throw cold
water on this enthusiasm, but we need to take a hard look
at what we call the community in India. It may turn out that,
instead of being the perfect solution, the community is part
of the problem. Many well-informed and knowledgeable persons
who are fully aware of the deep divisions and inequalities
– of class, of caste and of gender-in Indian society
as a whole, somehow manage to persuade themselves that the
Indian community is free from those divisions and inequalities.
This utopian vision of the community does not fit the actual
reality of the Indian village very well.
Many of the leaders of the nationalist movement
represented the Indian village as a ‘little republic’
and a haven of stability, order, harmony, self-sufficiency
and self-governance. This is the representation of it that
we find in the writings of Mahatma Gandhi and Jayaprakash
Narayan. But it did not go unchallenged. It was clinically
and mercilessly demolished in a celebrated speech made by
Dr B R Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly. “I hold
that the village republics have been the ruination of India.
I am therefore surprised that those who condemn provincialism
and communalism should come forward as champions of the village.
What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance,
narrow-mindedness and communalism?’ (Constituent Assembly
Debates 1989:39).
My own fieldwork in a south Indian village
where I lived in 1961-62 (Beteille 1965) convinced me that
Dr Ambedkar’s view of it was far closer to the reality
than the view of it as a harmonious and unchanging little
republic. Other community studies made by my colleagues and
students in the 1960s and 1970s confirmed my belief that Dr
Ambedkar’s view was substantially correct (Chakravarti
1975; Bliss and Stern 1982; Madan 2002). It is now nearly
sixty years since Dr Ambedkar made his statement in the Constituent
Assembly, and the Indian village has undergone many changes
during this period, but it is doubtful that the divisions
and inequalities of gender, caste and class have disappeared
without leaving any trace.
It is far from my intention to suggest that
we should turn our backs on the Indian village and proceed
through some other avenue if we are to promote elementary
education in the country. We cannot do it, and we should not
try to do it. All I am saying is that if we are to succeed
in our endeavours we must keep a close eye on the reality
of the school and the community, and not allow social analysis
to be displayed by ideology.
If the observations I have made appear somewhat
vague and inconclusive, the fault does not lie entirely with
me. In preparing this lecture, I have been handicapped by
the lack of sustained critical discussion of the subject based
on reliable empirical material. If such material exists, all
I can say is that is not easily available. I am aware that
there is a growing body of statistical material on elementary
education. That material answers a number of important questions,
but it does not answer the questions that I have raised which
I believe are also important.
Top
We do not have much sustained research on
the school as a social institution, as a field of social interaction
with its internal strains and tensions; or of the school’s
relationship with the community and the wider society within
which it exists. The relationship between school and society
is replete with ambiguities. It is a complex and difficult
subject into which social science research in India has not
entered very deeply. We do not have any satisfactory typology
of schools beyond classifications made in purely formal terms
such as size, material resources, and source and type of funding.
It is difficult to see how we can have informed public discussion
of elementary education in the absence of such research.
It is not easy to explain why research in
the sociology of education, and particularly, on the social
situation of the school has not received the serious attention
it deserves. When sociological research began to expand in
India fifty years ago, the small number of scholars who were
entering the field devoted their attention to other areas
of enquiry, and there were many of those to attract their
attention to other areas of enquiry, and there were many of
those to attract their attention. The modern school, including
the elementary school, is an open and secular institution
and, as such, is very different in its social texture from
the traditional institutions based on kinship, caste and religion.
The success of open and secular institutions in India will
depend in no small measure on how well the school socializes
its pupils for participation in forms of interaction that
are very different from those to which their forefathers had
been accustomed.
In the meantime, the orientation of research
in sociology and related social science disciplines has changed
from ‘delayed-return’ to ‘immediate-return’
research (Beteille 2006). The kind of research on the sociology
of the school that I have in mind that will explore the nature
of interactions within the school is ‘delayed-return
research’, and it is no longer popular today.
Social scientists in the universities often
complain that there is no money for social science research.
This is not entirely true. There is more money for research
now than there was fifty years ago, but most of it is for
‘immediate-return’ research. Funding agencies
have become result oriented; they not only want results, they
want quick, not to say immediate, results. The forms of research
are maintained in terms of sample size, design of questionnaire,
and so on, but the results are often trivial and lead to little
new insight. This kind of research is being increasingly organized
by agencies outside the universities which do not generally
have a long term commitment to the accumulation of intellectual
capital. Their main obligation they see as the submission
of project reports to the funding agencies.
‘Delayed-return’ research is
costly, not so much in terms of money as of effort and time.
It aims at the accumulation of knowledge on a long-term basic;
its course is uneven and its outcome not always guarantee.
It cannot clearly anticipate its outcome in advance and say
whether that outcome will be of immediate practical benefit
of mainly of intellectual value, or neither.
I do wish to emphasize that serious research
is costly in the sense that it does not always lead to a fruitful
outcome. Where it comes to a subject of such immediate practical
concern as elementary education, the funding tends to flow
to agencies outside the universities, and the universities
are generally out of funds. Hence research in the sociology
of education leads to very little long-term accumulation of
intellectual capital. Yet a deeper and more comprehensive
understanding of education cannot come without a long-term
investment in research, and without that understanding, public
action will lack direction. The fact that research does not
always lead to fruitful or practical outcomes cannot be an
argument against supporting it on a long term basis.
Advance is being made in the spread of elementary
education and various parties are contributing to the advance.
Greater advance requires wider participation. There is no
doubt that the advance need to be monitored through the collection
and analysis of data on a more extensive basis. This kind
of monitoring is necessary to enable people to know how well
particular policies or programme are working. Funding agencies,
whether within or outside the government, would naturally
like to know whether the resources being put into education
are producing the expected results. What I am asking for is
something more than this, which is research that can tell
us whether and to what extent long-term shifts are taking
place in the relationship between the institutions of education
and the communities in which they are embedded.
Long-term advances cannot take place without
changes in the structure of communities and without the creation
of curable institutions for learning and teaching. There are
no recipes available either for changing the structure of
communities or for creating durable institutions. But little
progress will be made unless we get to know better how communities
are organized today and how institutions actually operate
within them.
Top
Reference
Béteille, andré. 1965. Caste, Class and Power.
Berkeley: University of Califormia Press.
Béteille, André. 2006. ‘Sociology and
Current Affairs’, Sociological Bulletin 55(2): 201-14.
Bliss, C, and N.Stern. 1982. Palanpur. Delhi:Oxford University
Press
Boudon, Raymond. 1974. Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality.
New York: John Wiley.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction
in Education, Society and Culture, Beverley Hills: Sage.
Chakravarti, Anand. 1975. Contradiction and Change. Delhi
: Oxford University Press.
Constituent Assembly Debates. 1989. Official Report. New Delhi
: Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Devine, Fiona. 2004. Class Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Erikson, R. and J.H. Goldthorpe. 1993. The Constant Flux.
Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Jencks, Christopher et al. 1979. Who Gets Ahead?. New York:
Basic Books.
Madan, Vandana (ed). 2002. The Village in India. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
<<
back
|
