Towards multilingual education

I am one of the panelists in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-rLgRauaas&feature=relmfu. This program was  Nepal Television's (NTV) telecast 'Samabeshi Bahas' (meaning Inclusive Advocay). I and my senior Professors from Central Department of Education, Tribhuvan University were invited as panelists for the program. I enjoyed the discussion though a bit hesitant as it was my first appearance on TV screen.  We have discussed various issues of inclusive education. My focus was on how language issues are critical in education of minority groups especially of those whose first languages are rarely used in schools. Please watch the video and leave your comments. 

A gloomy picture ahead

The State has already spent billions of rupees for the Constituent Assembly (CA) which has two important tasks to accomplish – end the peace process and draft new constitution of the Federal Republic Nepal. Although the tenure of the CA has been extended for four times, it is not sure that whether the most awaited constitution will be drafted before May 27. Even if it is drafted within that deadline, the present political chaos indicates that the new constitution may not be able to lead the state toward stability (though it may be too early to predict). There are some critical issues three decisive major political parties and Madheshi front have to bear in mind at this critical juncture.

First and the most important issue is they have to realize that they are not representative of all the people. How can we believe that leaderships, who cannot even represent their party, are able to represent people and the whole nation? Why do meetings among political parties are always inconclusive? It has been apparent that political parties seem to be ideologically fragile. They seem to be diffident about what they think and say about the future of the federal republic Nepal. On the one hand, they are not able to develop consensus in their own parties and on the other hand, they think that whatever they agree is acceptable for the people. This kind of misconception is major set back for the delay and likely failure of the CA.

We clearly see that political parties lack both critical studies on nation building and negotiation skills. Especially the leaderships of three major parties seem to ignore the existence of the CA and its members. From a layman perspective, although negotiation and consensus among parties are required, it is not good to make the CA non-functional. Every contentious issue should be discussed in the CA that would help parties reach logical conclusions.

People foresee that even if the constitution is drafted within May 27, it may not be acceptable for Janajatis, dalits, women, Madhesis, and even Brahaman-Chetris. First, political parties have already irritated people for not being able to reach logical conclusions in many attempts. People suspect whether or not they are sincere about writing the new constitution. In addition, there is a stark difference among political parties regarding the nature of federalism. While Maoists seem to favor ethnic federalism, Nepali Congress and UML are arguing for geography and economic viability. While Brahmans-Chetris are against ethnic federalism, Janajatis are not ready to accept federalism that does not address their ethnic identity. Likewise, the Madheshi front’s ‘one-madhesh-one-state’ is not acceptable for Tharus and other Janajatis in Terai. This kind of contention has created very volatile situation in the country. For example, Janajatis have already started criticizing Nepali Congress and UML as anti-Janajati parties. As the demand for ethnic federalism in mounting, the Janajatis leaders from Congress and UML have already crossed their party border and started putting pressure on their leaderships for ethnic federalism. Likewise, Maoists are blamed for provoking ethnic agendas in politics. Those who are against ethnic federalism argue that the agenda of ethnicity may push the country into ethnic conflicts and violence. Contrary to this, Janajatis argue that without ethnic federalism the long-seated history of feudalism and exclusion cannot be removed.

It is apparent that it all kinds of federalism proposed by different parties are contentious. In this situation, political parties should be more cautious and serious about the nature of federalism. They should not only think about drafting a constitution for the sake of constitution but also analyze whether or not it represents voices of people. It is time to think that what happens if people do not accept the constitution in future. Who will be responsible for the conflict and instability invited by the new constitution? How will the newly formed states function smoothly? Political parties should also discussion these issues critically. But as there is no time for taking the draft of the constitution among the people for their comments, it is almost certain that the constitution is going to be just an ideological mixture of Maoists, Congress, UML and Madheshi front. As there is no enough time to inform people and incorporate their voices before it is promulgated, it is almost certain that the new constitution will certain to be no other than legitimization of ideologies of three major parties.

The myopic vision of Prachanda, Shushil Koirala, and Jhalanath Khanal is no longer helpful to forge consensus for the timely and sustainable drafting of the constitution. These three so-called key players of the constitution drafting process should be ready to listen to the voices of people from all walks of life. Rather than having futile meetings among them, they should propose and organize a conclusive round-table meeting with Janajatis, dalits, womens, Madhesi, civil societies and so on. This is a more democratic process to finish the constitution drafting and lead the nation to a new era.

Language and social cohesion

Language is very sensitive which may create social disintegration if it is not used and planned properly.  We all know that Paramanda Jha, the first Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nepal took his oath in Hindi on July 23, 2008. The whole nation was brought to a halt for more than a week due to strikes against his action. People chanted slogans saying that he ignored the linguistic identity of the nation by taking the oath in Hindi, the national language of India. Although the Supreme Court declared his oath in Hindi unconstitutional and ordered him to take one in Nepali, he refused to do so. To resolve this issue, the Legislative Parliament passed the seventh amendment to the Interim Constitution on January 28, 2010. The amendment allows the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and other ministers to take the oath of office in their first language. On February 7, 2010, the Vice President took a fresh oath in both Nepali and Maithili, his first language.

Such issues emerge due to lack of clear language policy. It is clear that a society functions cohesively in a country where inclusive multilingual policy is adopted. But conflicts and social disintegration of different nature take place in a country like Nepal where language policy is not inclusive. In a democratically just society all linguistic communities expect their linguistic identity to be addressed and protected. In order to discuss how language issues can be settled down for social cohesion, the 9^th Language and Development International Conference was organized in Colombo, Sri Lanka with the theme ‘Language and Social Cohesion’ on 17-19 October, 2011. There were papers from 22 countries that discussed how proper planning of languages foster socio-economic development, educational performance, political stability, and identity (gender, ethnic, and national) of a country and its people. Being a paper presenter I collected some major inputs that can be instrumental for language planning to build a cohesive Nepalese society.

The grand opening ceremony in the presence of the President Mahinda Rajapaksh, ministers and high ranking officials was conducted in three languages – Sinhala, Tamil and English. It is the government’s policy that all formal programmes should be conducted in three languages. As it was the international conference, all government officials including the President Rajapaksha addressed the gathering in English.  In his thought-provoking speech, the President mentioned that one of reasons for previous conflict in Sri Lanka was the discriminatory language policy (i.e. Only Sinhala as official language policy) adopted by the country. There were two booths in the conference hall from where all speeches were translated into Sinhala and Tamil that can be tuned into a wireless headphone. The trilingual policy of Sri Lanka is clearly seen in marketplaces, bus station and the city. All sign boards and public notices can be seen in three languages. Both Sinhala and Tamil languages are taught in schools and universities. In various informal discussions I learned that Tamil-speaking children are doing well after the introduction of Tamil in schools. It is also very interesting to learn that Sri Lankan job market prefers trilingual candidates than monolingual ones.

Sri Lankan language policy provides some significant issues to formulate inclusive language policy in Nepal. First, it is clear that Nepal has to prepare a comprehensive language policy. As mentioned above, the issue of oath taking in Hindi by the Vice-President, Paramananda Jha, emerged as there was no clear language policy of the country. Second, the country has to remove the maxim of ‘one language one nation’. Such a narrow nationalism defined only in terms of the Nepali language undermines the indigenous identity of Nepal as a multilingual country. As Tamils agitated against the discriminatory one language policy of the country, different indigenous linguistic communities have been demanding their linguistic rights for about two and half centuries. Although the country seemed to be unified with its one language policy, people from various linguistic communities have been discriminated. Due to lack of proficiency in the Nepali language people from indigenous communities could not access wider socio-economic opportunities. Their children could not continue their education as they could not perform well due to Nepali only medium of instruction in schools. This clearly indicates that there is a need of formulating a feasible language-in-education policy which creates a cohesive atmosphere among children’s home languages and medium of instruction in schools.

Another important implication is that the country has to be cautious while developing language planning policies in its federal structure. As in Sri Lanka, the federal states can decide at least one local language (based on the number of speakers) to be used as an official language along with Nepali as another official and link language. In the case of other minority languages the federal states can devise a policy to introduce them in education and other domains. Considering English as an important international language, its role has to be clearly defined. English can be used while addressing international communities (e.g. conferences, political dealings and business). But the country should manage to translate English into Nepali and other federal languages. Although it is not easy to devise multilingual language policy, it is not impossible if there is strong political will. For this, the country has to ensure the participation of linguistic groups in the process of language policy making. Because the linguistic situation of the country is so adverse and delicate, the top-down approach of language planning (i.e. planning based on the ideas of elites only) may not really address linguistic complexities.

We have not only more than 140 languages but also have a treasure of knowledge constructed through them. All languages have to be preserved. For this the country has to make a long-term plan. One of the important lessons we can learn from Sri Lanka in this regard is the establishment of a separate ministry for the development of national languages. Sri Lanka has the Ministry of National Languages and Social Integration which is fully responsible for the promotion of national languages and fostering social cohesion. There is an urgent need of the Ministry of National Languages and Social Integration in Nepal as well to address linguistic complexities of the country and to ensure linguistic rights of the people. While promoting national languages the country can preserve a vast treasurer of knowledge on literature, culture, ecology, history, education, society, conflict resolution, religion and so on.  

(The author researches on issues of language planning in multilingual contexts and language-identity connection. His recent article on language-in-education planning in Nepal has been published in the Current Issues in Language Planning, Routledge, London)

Digital devices save languages

Ideologies in action

Jaffe, A. (1999) Ideologies in action: language politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

In her ethnographic study of Corsican language policy, Jaffe (1999) argues that it is vey difficult to resist and challenge monolingual ideology (French in Corsica) as it is deeply embedded in social institutions like school. Spending fourteen months in a rural Corsican village and discussion with languages planners, she found that there is growing activism to resist French domination and to preserve Corsican language and identity. The study also found that there is lack of grass-roots support for Corsican language teaching in the state schools. She comments this phenomenon can be ‘understood as a consequence of the deep-rootedness of the diglossic system of value and identity’ in which French holds superiority’ (p.25). In addition, ‘assimilation and accommodation to dominant society is rewarded. The social and economic rewards of French education for many Corsicans have implicitly validated dominant models of cultural and linguistic identity and value’ (p.272). Since French is the legitimized language, Corsican language activists are constrained by the power of the dominant language in everyday discourse. As Corsican lacks long literary history, strong oral tradition and socio-economic currency, Corsicans mask their own linguistic identity and assimilate with the powerful ‘habitus’ which is reproduced by dominant language ideology and educational discourse. Jaffee claims that ‘the hegemony of dominant language ideologies is never complete’ (p.283).  Corsican case implies that it is very difficult to resist dominant language ideology as it is often associated with power and economy. The the minority language speakers’ ambivalent position regarding the choice of language as the medium of instruction in school is resulted due to covert counter-resistance of the dominant language with its legitimization through laws and through its control over the market. As Jaffee argues such ‘forms of legitimizations are rooted in dominant ideologies of language and identity that are influential in any number of minority language context across the  globe’ (p. 284), comparative ethnography can be foundation for understanding various issues and dynamics of minority language education and revitalization plans. 

Debunking a few myths

The government of Nepal has shown its commitment to ensure quality education for children from all the communities by 2015 as envisioned by Educational for All and the Millennium Development Goal programmes. The Ministry of Education (MoE) has also developed guidelines for implementing multilingual education (MLE) as an integral part of the Nepali education system. According to the plan, local mother tongues will be the medium of instruction for pre-primary education and for all subjects (except Nepali and English) up to Grade 3. Basic education in Grades 4 and 5 shall be bilingual (the mother tongue and a second language). The government aims to implement MLE in 7,500 schools by 2015.

Famous scholars like Carol Benson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Pamela MacKenzie and Ajit Mohanty have argued that teaching in one’s mother tongue not only enhances the children’s overall educational attainment but also establishes a linkage between schools and the community. However, there are some major misconceptions that have to be removed for the sustainability of MLE.

Education in mother tongue is irrelevant

There is a strong belief among parents, children and policy makers that dominant languages like English and Nepali are the most important languages to access wider socio-economic opportunities at the national and international levels.

Indigenous people from the developing countries often believe that learning in the mother tongue has no any relevance for promoting quality education. There is also a belief that since children are already competent in their mother tongue before they go to school, there is no point in introducing it in school. This belief emerges from the ignorance and illiteracy of the indigenous people. They are not aware of and are not well informed about the fact that, in the early grades, learning in the mother tongue will help children learn better, creating a strong foundation for effective learning of other languages like English and Nepali.

Kids should be taught in the dominant languages

There is a view that children should be taught in the dominant language irrespective of their linguistic background. In different developing countries, the perceived value of English, for example, as the language that brings prosperity in one’s life is taken as granted. People from poor countries have a mindset that without teaching English from the early grades, their children will be unable to compete with other children. Of course, it is true that having knowledge of English is necessary as it is a global lingua franca. There is no doubt that command over English provides wider socio-economic opportunities. But it is not true that children can learn better English or any dominant language if they develop confidence in learning in general.

Introduction of English, for example, from the early grades does not guarantee children’s competence in English. Availability of competent teachers, materials and other sources has to be considered. The case of Ethiopia (one of the world’s poorest countries) shows that children learning in their mother tongue for the first eight years have performed better in all subjects including English than those who were not taught in their mother tongue. Similar findings have been reported from Orissa, India. This clearly indicates that learning in the mother tongue in the early grades not only promotes competence in the first language but also promotes better learning of other languages including English.

Multilingual education is anti-English

In educational discourse, we see that mother tongue-based education and English education are considered as enemies. Not only indigenous activists but also educationists have this kind of belief. Policy makers and educationists fear that use of the mother tongue may displace the use of English and vice versa. However, this is only a misconception.

Mother tongue-based education is not an anti-English education policy, rather it supports effective teaching and sustainable learning of English. It advocates teaching of English at the right time, by the right people and for the right purpose. MLE argues for enhancement of quality education through the mother tongue in the beginning with effective teaching of English and other languages after children develop a strong foundation in their first language. Likewise, right policies and effective implementation of English education helps to promote the world’s linguistic diversity.

Multilingual education is expensive

There is a belief that since MLE requires production of materials and teacher preparation in multiple languages, the state cannot afford the financial burden of implementing such a programme. Although sufficient funds are necessary to implement the programme, it is not impossible to find funds if there is strong political will. At the same time, it should be noted that we cannot compare the children’s educational attainment with money.

Minority Rights Group International reported in 2009 that the world’s 101 million children are still out of school, and that between 50 and 70 percent of them are from minority linguistic communities due to linguistic barriers. We see that even if states and donor agencies have spent huge amounts of money, there is no substantial progress in ensuring access and promoting the quality of basic education. The World Bank has reported that although mother tongue-based education programmes are costly in the initial phase, in the long run they are more cost-effective as they promote quality education.

The value of the programme that helps to promote social cohesion, bring ethno-linguistic minority children into school, enhances quality education and increases community participation in schools is priceless and incomparable with the investment of money. In this regard, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and others have argued that rather than asking whether states can afford mother tongue-based education programmes, we have to ask whether states can afford not to implement them.

Published on 23 December, 2011, The Kathmandu Post

Minding our languages

Language is very sensitive which may create social disintegration if it is not used and planned properly. We all know that Parmanand Jha, the first vice-president of the Federal Republic of Nepal, took the oath of office in Hindi on July 23, 2008. The whole country came to a halt for more than a week due to protests against his action. Although the Supreme Court declared his oath in Hindi to be unconstitutional and ordered him to retake the oath in Nepali, he refused to do so. To resolve this issue, the Legislative Parliament passed the Seventh Amendment to the Interim Constitution on Jan 28, 2010. The amendment allows the president, vice-president, prime minister and other ministers to take the oath of office in their first language. On Feb 7, 2010, Vice-President Jha took a fresh oath in both Nepali and Maithili, his first language.

Such issues emerge due to lack of a clear language policy. It is obvious that a society functions cohesively in a country where an inclusive multilingual policy is adopted. But conflicts and social disintegration of a different nature take place in a country like Nepal where the language policy is not inclusive. In a democratically just society, all linguistic communities expect their linguistic identity to be addressed and protected. In order to discuss how language issues can be settled for social cohesion, the Ninth Language and Development International Conference was organised in Colombo, Sri Lanka with the theme “Language and Social Cohesion” on Oct 17-19, 2011. As one of the paper presenters, I collected some major inputs that could be instrumental for language planning to build a cohesive Nepali society. 

The grand opening ceremony was conducted in three languages — Sinhala, Tamil and English — as per the government’s policy. As it was an international conference, all the government officials including Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa addressed the gathering in English. The president said that one of the reasons for the previous conflict in Sri Lanka was its discriminatory language policy (only Sinhala was recognised as the official language). There were two booths in the conference hall from where all the speeches were translated into Sinhala and Tamil that could be heard over a wireless headphone. 

Sri Lanka’s trilingual policy is clearly seen in the marketplaces, bus stations and the city. All the signboards and public notices are in three languages. Both Sinhala and Tamil are taught in the schools and universities. I learned at various informal discussions that Tamil-speaking children were doing well after the introduction of Tamil in school. It is also very interesting to learn that the Sri Lankan job market prefers trilingual candidates over monolingual ones. 

Sri Lanka’s language policy provides some significant issues to formulate an inclusive language policy in Nepal. First, it is clear that Nepal has to prepare a comprehensive language policy. Second, the country has to get rid of the “one language, one nation” attitude. Such narrow nationalism defined only in terms of the Nepali language undermines the indigenous identity of Nepal as a multilingual country. As Tamils agitated against Sri Lanka’s discriminatory one-language policy, different indigenous linguistic communities in Nepal have been demanding their linguistic rights for about two and half centuries. 

Although the country seemed to be unified with its one-language policy, people from various linguistic communities have been discriminated against. Due to lack of proficiency in the Nepali language, people from indigenous communities could not access wider socio-economic opportunities. Their children could not perform well in school as only Nepali was used as the medium of instruction. This clearly indicates that there is a need to formulate a feasible language-in-education policy which creates a cohesive atmosphere among the children’s home languages and the medium of instruction in school. 

Another important implication is that the country has to be cautious while developing language planning policies in its federal structure. As in Sri Lanka, the federal states can choose at least one local language (based on the number of speakers) to be used along with Nepali as another official and link language. In the case of other minority languages, the federal states can devise a policy to introduce them in education and other domains. Considering English as an important international language, its role has to be clearly defined. Although it is not easy to devise a multilingual language policy, it is not impossible if there is strong political will. For this, the country has to ensure the participation of linguistic groups in the process of language policy making. The top-down approach of language planning (planning based on the ideas of only the elite) may not really address linguistic complexities. 

We not only have more than 140 languages but also a treasure trove of knowledge constructed through them. All the languages have to be preserved. For this, the country has to make a long-term plan. One of the important lessons we can learn from Sri Lanka in this regard is the establishment of a separate ministry for the development of national languages. Sri Lanka has the Ministry of National Languages and Social Integration which is fully responsible for the promotion of national languages and fostering social cohesion. There is an urgent need for such a ministry in Nepal. By promoting the national languages, the country will be preserving a vast store of knowledge in literature, culture, ecology, history, education, society, conflict resolution, religion and so on.  

http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2011/11/14/oped/minding-our-languages/228221.html