“Knowledge” has traditionally been seen as a public good, freely shared to foster innovation, education and social progress. In recent decades, however, market forces have increasingly treated information and learning as commodities. Under neoliberal policies and the rise of a global “knowledge economy,” education, research and even cultural wisdom are often bought and sold. Critics note that this shift means knowledge increasingly carries an exchange value, giving rise to new forms of inequality. As one commentator puts it, neoliberalism has led to the “commodification of knowledge and education,” casting students as consumers and credentials as products. This trend is visible worldwide in expensive textbooks and paywalled journals, high-fee private schools and online courses, but it has particular implications in India, where access to knowledge is already uneven and many are marginalized.

Knowledge commodification manifests in many ways: private education and EdTech start-ups charging steep fees; intellectual property laws granting exclusive rights to inventions and data; and tech platforms monetizing every lecture, article or research finding. At the same time, traditional knowledge (e.g. Ayurvedic remedies, folk wisdom) has been aggressively patented abroad, a phenomenon dubbed “biopiracy.” In the 1990s India successfully challenged a U.S. patent on turmeric (“haldi”) wound-healing, showing that this was prior art from traditional practice. As CSIR chief R. A. Mashelkar remarked, this victory signaled that “traditional knowledge…cannot be taken away” if challenged with sound evidence. Such cases highlight how global patent systems can commodify local knowledge, sparking a fight to keep shared wisdom in the commons.

Key drivers of knowledge commodification

• Intellectual property regimes and patents: International agreements (e.g. WTO/TRIPS) have strengthened IP protection globally. This enables companies or institutions to claim exclusive control over scientific discoveries, seeds, medicines and more. The result is that knowledge, whether it is a drug formula or a software algorithm, is traded like any other private good.
• Privatization of education: Governments around the world (including India) have expanded private-sector roles in schooling and higher education. Private schools, colleges and online course providers often operate on for-profit models. When education is run as a business, access depends on ability to pay. India’s Constitution guarantees education as a fundamental right, yet the public system remains under-resourced. In higher education, critics warn that moving from a partly-regulated system to one “fully governed by market principles” will benefit only a privileged few.
• Digital technology and e-learning platforms: The internet promised to democratize knowledge, but in practice many digital resources are also monetized. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and e-learning platforms proliferate, but top-quality ones often require subscriptions or are tied to brand-name universities. Even so-called “free” content is usually ad-supported or aimed at funneling users into paid services. In India, for instance, the booming MOOC scene is a double-edged sword: it can reach more learners, but it also creates new markets for paid credentials.
• Data and content ownership: Every day students and researchers generate data (essays, code, experimental results) which often ends up owned by corporations or lost behind paywalls. Major journals charge thousands of dollars per article, effectively “selling” peer-reviewed knowledge back to the public. The open science movement highlights this problem: UNESCO emphasizes that scientific knowledge should be “openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone,” as part of the human right to share in scientific advancement. Yet many communities in the global South lack access to journals and databases, deepening the “knowledge divide” that mirrors the digital divide.

The impacts of knowledge commodification are profound, especially for education and equity. In a commodified system, children from poorer or marginalized families are doubly disadvantaged: they often start out with less access to information (fewer books at home, limited internet or libraries) and they cannot afford extra tutoring, test prep or enrichment programs. Far fewer Adivasi youths reached college than the national average, a disparity linked to economic and social barriers. When knowledge (education) becomes a commodity, the poorest are left behind.

A deep digital divide compounds these inequities. COVID-19 lockdowns highlighted that most Indian schools simply couldn’t shift online. Only 19% of Indian schools had Internet access in 2018–19 and as low as 14% in rural areas. Only 22% had a computer; most rural schools lacked any digital infrastructure. This means that while private schools quickly switched to paid online classes, many public school children had no such option. Even where connectivity exists, learning at home depends on owning a device and paying for data which are additional costs that high-income families bear but low-income families often cannot. In sum, without addressing access, tech tools risk widening the knowledge gap.

Globally, the commodification of knowledge also raises larger issues. Critics warn that a purely market-driven “knowledge economy” tends to favor privileged groups and certain forms of knowledge (for example, profitable tech and science) while undervaluing local or indigenous wisdom. UNESCO has noted that “excessive commodification of knowledge risks undervaluing local and indigenous knowledge,” potentially driving such knowledge toward extinction. Indeed, one danger of marketizing learning is that it imposes a single “neoliberal” curriculum, crowding out diverse perspectives. As global institutions (IMF, World Bank, etc.) push policies on trade and education, they propagate a narrow view of development that is itself a product of commodified knowledge. Activists argue this creates a kind of intellectual colonialism: when developing countries become passive consumers of knowledge produced in the North, they lose agency. OpenDemocracy reports that commodification not only markets knowledge, it “builds a global consensus over the power of capital,” embedding market logic in public policy worldwide.

Knowledge in India: Markets vs. Rights

In India, the tug-of-war between treating knowledge as a commodity and as a public good is especially acute. The Indian Constitution enshrines free and compulsory education for children as a fundamental right, yet the reality falls short. Government schools are overstretched and underfunded, while high-quality private schools and coaching centers flourish for those who can pay. Even after the Right to Education Act, an alarming number of children remain excluded. Whatever the exact figures, the bottom line is that millions of Indian children lack access to adequate schooling, often because low-income parents cannot afford fees, uniforms, books or transport. In higher education, too, costs can be a barrier: college tuition and exam fees effectively restrict admissions for the poor, keeping GER low for underprivileged castes.

At the same time, India has seen an explosion of private and foreign involvement in education. For-profit universities and vocational institutes have grown rapidly, attracting investment by promising large markets and high returns. Critics worry that focus shifts from quality and equity toward maximizing fees. Indeed, research finds that the best universities worldwide are usually public or non-profit; when Indian institutions that were once non-profit are pushed to seek unrestricted profits, quality and accessibility suffer. As one summary argues, adopting fully “market principles” in education is “hazardous to its strength and equity,” likely injuring all but “a privileged few”.

Digital learning initiatives have been touted as part of the solution. Platforms like SWAYAM (a national MOOC platform) and apps offering video lectures promise low-cost education at scale. The UNESCO/IIEP foresight report notes that India’s burgeoning digital infrastructure could “expand access through digital learning” and reach diaspora communities. However, the same report cautions that policy must ensure reliability, context-appropriate content and inclusive design (for gender, location, disabilities). The concern is that without careful planning, digital tools could reinforce existing gaps: only wealthier students may have devices and bandwidth to use them, turning “digital learning” into another paid service.

Moreover, as schools rushed online during COVID-19, many students simply dropped out. The UNESCO India Education Report (2021) highlights that nearly 85% of students lacked needed tech at home during lockdowns, and foundational learning losses mounted. Ironically, districts with more private schools (and higher incomes) managed better with online classes, leaving low-income districts even further behind. Thus, digital technology is a double-edged sword: it has potential to democratize knowledge, but in practice India must bridge infrastructure and training gaps lest it becomes yet another market.

Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge and Commons

Another flashpoint is intellectual property. Under pressure from global trade rules, India amended its Patent Act to allow product patents on pharmaceuticals and chemicals starting in 2005. While this opened doors for R&D investment, it also raised fears of “knowledge capture” by foreign firms. The turmeric case remains famous: two Mississippi researchers patented turmeric’s wound-healing use in 1995, only to have it revoked in 1997 after India’s CSIR proved turmeric’s ancient use. This set a precedent: “traditional knowledge cannot be taken away,” CSIR noted. Similarly, patents on neem-based pesticides and other Indian-native plants have been contested globally. Activists decry these as biopiracy, where multinational companies profit from centuries-old indigenous wisdom without fair compensation. To protect its heritage, India has taken innovative steps. The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) project compiles thousands of Ayurvedic formulations into a searchable format for patent examiners, making it harder to patent “old” knowledge. This is a rare case of a country actively using documentation to de-commodify its knowledge.

Within academia and research, issues of commodification also arise. Scholarly publishing is dominated by a few commercial journals, and many Indian researchers lack funds to publish open-access or subscribe to journals. UNESCO’s recent open science recommendation urges open access to make “multilingual scientific knowledge openly available…for everyone”. Indian institutions have slowly warmed to open repositories and preprint servers, but progress is uneven. Initiatives like the National Digital Library (providing free e-books) and free government MOOCs aim to break paywalls, but their reach remains limited. Cultural knowledge and media is another front. When a handful of companies control what content is broadcast or streamed, they effectively decide which knowledge is visible and which is silenced. UNESCO has warned that over-commercialization leads to losses of local wisdom.

Towards an Open Knowledge Society

Despite the challenges, there are counter-movements emphasizing open, shared knowledge. Open Educational Resources (OER) are gaining ground in India. For example, the National Repository of Open Educational Resources (NROER) provides free textbooks and videos under Creative Commons licenses. School teachers and universities are encouraged to share materials openly. On the research front, Indian academics are increasingly using preprint servers and advocating open access, aided by policies (like some government agencies requiring open access for funded research). These steps align with global calls: UNESCO and others now push for open science and open data as ways to make knowledge less of an exclusive commodity.

Grassroots activism also persists. Student and teacher groups have protested the high cost of education and exam fees. Rural communities have set up non-profit learning centers. In the patent arena, civil society organizations monitor biopiracy cases and pressure officials to challenge unjust patents. Indian courts have sometimes intervened to uphold public interest over private profit (for example, in the case of life-saving drug pricing).

International frameworks are shifting too. The 2023 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science calls on nations to “develop policy environments” that ensure knowledge is shared widely. These global standards recognize that unfettered knowledge markets can exacerbate inequalities. With India a signatory to these norms, the government now has a mandate to support free access wherever possible, for instance, by funding libraries, subsidizing textbooks, or mandating open access publishing for publicly funded research.

Key Takeaways

• Knowledge as a public good versus a commodity: Unlike physical commodities, knowledge multiplies as it is shared. When knowledge is treated purely as a product, it limits innovation and social progress. For example, UNESCO notes that “real knowledge isn’t free” under current market regimes, creating a tension between profit motives and public benefit.
• Education and equity: When schooling and learning cost money, marginalized groups suffer the most. India’s data show that huge numbers of children remain out of school or drop out, especially among the poor and disadvantaged. High educational costs (even in “free” public schools, hidden fees often exist) and expensive private alternatives reinforce social hierarchies.
• Digital technology’s paradox: Online platforms can expand access to high-quality courses, but only if digital divides are bridged. Relying on ed-tech alone could worsen inequality. Policy must ensure broadband and devices reach every student, or risk making knowledge access another class-based privilege.
• Intellectual property and traditional knowledge: Patents and copyrights can spur innovation, but they can also privatize what used to be commons.
• Open knowledge initiatives: The rise of open educational resources, community libraries, open-source software and open-access research is a direct response to commodification. UNESCO and other bodies endorse these as ways to ensure everyone can “share in scientific advancement”. In India, projects like the National Digital Library and public MOOCs are steps in this direction, though they must be scaled further.

The commodification of knowledge is a complex, multi-layered phenomenon. It is driven by global economic policies, technological changes and shifting political priorities. The consequences like widening inequality, lost cultural knowledge, and a narrowing of educational ideals are serious. Yet awareness is growing, and both globally and in India there is momentum toward making knowledge more open and equitable. As UNESCO puts it, the real challenge is to steer away from viewing education merely as a commodity for economic ends. Reimagining knowledge as a shared resource requires legal, institutional and social changes: stronger public education investment, digital inclusion, robust open-access policies and protection for indigenous wisdom. Only by treating knowledge as a collective asset can societies ensure that innovation and learning uplift everyone, not just those who can afford to buy them.

About the Author

Saptarshi is a public policy professional with an academic background in psychology and public policy. He is the co-founder of Citizens for Reform - India and formerly worked with Health Parliament, where he collaborated closely with the former Advisor to the Union Health Minister. Saptarshi has contributed to India’s Viksit Bharat Abhiyan Vision Document and the UN IGF’s Dynamic Coalition on Environment, focusing on governance, sustainability, and civic engagement.

---