Recent studies have demonstrated melatonin protects various crops against abiotic stresses. However, the effects of melatonin on the photosynthetic apparatus of stressed plants is poorly characterized. We investigated the effects of melatonin pretreatment on photosynthesis and tolerance to salinity stress in Avena sativa (oat) plants. Oat plants were exposed to four treatments (three replicate pots per treatment): well-watered (WW; control); watered with 300 mM salt solution for 10 days (NaCl); pretreated with 100 µM melatonin solution for 7 days then watered normally for 10 days (Mel+W); or pretreated with 100 µM melatonin for 7 days then 300 mM salt for 10 days (Mel+NaCl). Considerable differences in growth parameters, chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance, proline accumulation, lipid peroxidation, electrolyte leakage, and growth parameters were observed between groups. Genes encoding three major antioxidant enzymes were upregulated in the Mel+NaCl group compared to the other groups. Chlorophyll-a fluorescence kinetic analyses revealed that almost all photosynthetic parameters were improved in Mel+NaCl plants compared to the other treatments. Analysis of genes encoding the major extrinsic proteins of photosystem II (PSII) revealed that PsbA, PsbB, PsbC, and PsbD (but not PsbO) were highly upregulated in Mel+NaCl plants compared to the other groups, indicating melatonin positively influenced photosynthesis under control conditions and salt stress. In addition, melatonin upregulated stress-responsive NAC transcription factor genes in plants exposed to salt stress. These findings suggest melatonin pretreatment improves photosynthesis and enhances salt tolerance in oat plants.

With the end of the Cold War political returns on foreign aid diminished.Many countries came to recognise trade as a more development-friendlymodality than aid. Internationalisation of higher education also shiftedfrom aid related cooperation agreements to market mediated cross-bordertrade arrangements within the framework of the General Agreementon Trade in Services (GATS). This article examines the changing face ofinternationalisation of higher education with a focus on the Indian experience.It argues that while internationalisation and cross-border mobilityare mediated by market processes and economic rationality in most countries,the Indian government’s initiatives to internationalise Indian highereducation are motivated by extending diplomatic relations to enable thecountry to play a more prominent role in global affairs.

No abstract

The market friendly reforms of the 1990s encouraged proliferation of private higher education institutions and massification of the sector. Massification is accompanied by persisting inequalities, declining quality and poses challenges to effectively manage the system.  This paper argues for a more regulated growth of private higher education and targeted public investments in favour of disadvantaged groups and deprived regions.

This paper is an attempt to analyse the present pattern of funding higher education in India and to discuss the desirability and feasibility of various alternative methods of funding the same. Higher education in India is basically a state funded sector. But as higher education benefits not only society at large, but also individuals specifically, and as it attracts relatively more privileged sections of the society, there is a rationale for shifting the financial burden to the individual domain from the social domain.It is argued here that given the resource constraints and equity considerations, financing higher education mostly from the general tax revenue may not be a desirable policy in the long run. Accordingly some of the alternative policy choices are discussed, including financing higher education from the public exchequer, student loans, graduate tax, student fees, and the role of the private sector. Among the available alternatives, it is argued that a discriminatory pricing mechanism would be relatively more efficient and equitable. While given the socioeconomic and political realities, the government has to continue to bear a large responsibility for funding higher education, instead of relying on a single form of funding, efforts should be made to evolve a model of funding that provides a mix of the various methods. It is also argued that fee and subsidy policies need to make distinctions across various layers and forms of higher education.