Afraid of people

Since the dissolution of Constituent Assembly (CA), identity has emerged as a critical issue in the Nepali political discourse. The media, political meetings and social networks like Facebook, twitter are flooded with views identity politics. It is praiseworthy that people have started critical discussions on identity issues. However, these discourses also reflect one disturbing ideology—us v them—leading to the polarisation of society and politics in terms of ethnicity. As we see, historically marginalised communities, especially Janajatis, are interpreting identity from the socio-historical perspective while the mainstream political parties are reducing this issue to a narrow sense of ethnicity. 
One consequence of this polarisation is ethnophobia as seen currently in sections of our society. At face value, ethnophobia refers to the irrational hatred of others in terms of their personal backgrounds like caste and ethnicity, religion, nationality, language, social class and gender. In a broader sense it refers to the illogical discomfort and fear of people. However, different types of ethnophobia are not separable because personal backgrounds are concrete manifestations of people. Let me exemplify these ethnophobias with some remarks I collected from different social media. Being a member of many social media groups, I often see an interesting dohori among people on the issue of identity, federalism, language and ethnicity. One group in the dohori is composed of Janajatis while another group represents the high-caste non-Janajatis.

Words and phrases like “anapadh ra murkha Janajatis” (uneducated and stupid Janajatis), “pakhe” (uncivilised), and “sankuchit sochaka manche” (narrow-minded people) are often used to address the Janajatis while terms like “janaibadi” (wearer of the holy cord), “saranarthi” (refugees), and “jali” (dishonest) are some examples of the words and phrases that Janajatis use the other way around. Although these words and phrases cannot be essentially linked with any caste and ethnicity, it is apparent that Facebook users are highly influenced by the type of language being used by our leaders who unknowingly seem to ignore the unsettled identity discourse now. For example, a member in a Facebook group reacted: “ekkaisau satabdi ma pani jatjati ko kura garne ...sap?” (Are you talking about ethnicity in the 21st century?), when one Janajati person wanted to know why political parties are not able to forge consensus on the identity issue. Accordingly, in response to his question, many Janajatis commented about the non-Janajati as being “ekatmakbadi” (unitarist), “Hindu-atibadi” (pro-Hindu extremist), and “bhrastachari” (corrupt).
We see that such discourses reflect ingrained socio-political ideologies dominating the current Nepali society and politics. If we analyse the political discourses one clear theme emerges: while the Janajatis are considered “jatiyatabadis” (ethnocentrists) just because they are raising identity issues, high-caste people are described as “sanghiyata birodhi” (anti-federalist), anti-Janajatis and “pahichan birodhi” (anti identity). Both views are at once true and false. 

It is not true that all high-caste people are anti-federalists, anti-Janajatis and pro-Hindu extremists. Critical writers have eloquently argued that political parties’ inability to build a consensus on identity issues, as demanded mainly by the Janajati leaders, stems from the pro-Hindu and mon-oethnic, hegemonic mindset—the reluctance to accept multiculturalism, multilingual and multi-ethnicity as the country’s identity. But what is true is that the way identity is interpreted (by the mainstream political parties and their leaders as well as some extremist Janajatis) as synonymous to ethnicity and vice versa is traditionally a racist interpretation. 

Reducing identity to an ethnic agenda reflects not only a lack of our leaders’ understanding about what identity means and how it operates in different spaces, places, time and scales, but also their unwillingness to listen to the people’s voices and unravel what makes identity salient in the country’s changed political context. Rather, our leaders are more entangled with essentialist ideas that see the world as a dichotomous objective entity as seen in the Facebook conversations mentioned above. Interpreting that raising the issue of identity will lead to ethnic cleansing, civil war, and national disintegration, as seen in our leaders’ public remarks, is rather naive, illogical and ideologically reductionist. It reflects nothing short of political schizophrenia. The way Janajatis are not able to make people understand what identity means for them and how it ensures the co-construction of ethnic lived spaces clear is another factor leading to the polarisation of the whole society. One way to understand this complexity is to look at how identity intersects with other factors like history, class, language, culture, place and social exclusion. However, in absence of serious scholarly and political debates on the complexity of politics-identity-ethnicity nexus for state restructuring, the fissure between high-caste people and Janajatis is increasing at the ideological level, if not at the lived level. 

The Facebook conversations further show that the way people comment on each other’s posts is determined by their surnames. Even if issues are genuine, certain people do not like them just because they are not raised by a person from their own caste or ethnicity. We see that social discourses are dominated by superficial ethnic talks while genuine socio-political agendas that ethnicity and caste carry in the historical and socio-cultural context of Nepal are sidelined. Such escapism reflects the dwindling civic and political culture of our society. Critiquing someone’s value and ideology in terms of his or her caste and ethnicity is racist. Such ideological fragility is the main factor behind our leaders’ inability to agree on national political issues. They are afraid of each other’s backgrounds and as a result, they are afraid of people.

The hula way | Opinion | Oped | ekantipur.com

The hula way | Opinion | Oped | ekantipur.com

Fatalistic Chakari

Dor Bahadur Bista, also known as the ‘father of Nepalese anthropology’, unravels some critical socio-cultural aspects of Nepal’s endeavor to modernization and development in his groundbreaking book ‘Fatalism and Development: Nepal’s Struggle for Modernization’ (1991). Although controversial, his views that bifurcate why Nepal’s efforts to development fail are worth contemplating.  

His view on how chakari, as a fatal culture, obstructs Nepal’s development endeavor still carries a huge currency in the country’s transitional political context.  Bista argues that chakari (literally ‘sycophancy’) ‘as a social activity, is simply being close to or in the presence of the person whose favor is desired.’  During my informal discussions with the people from all walks of life after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly (CA) in May, a common issue that I found was their frustration toward the accountability of political parties, increasing corruption and abuse of power and authority.  I had also got an opportunity to talk to some young cadres of three big political parties, Maoists, NC and UML. They were very anxious about their political future because, as they have argued, the leadership in their respective parties seems to be more undemocratic in their ways of functioning. They strongly criticized that the political parties, mostly led by old leaders, have to be more transparent on what, why and how they are making every decision for the benefit of the country at large. Most interestingly, they also shared that the CA was dissolved because the discussions on the issues of national restructuring was limited to the top leaders of major political parties.

 I also had a series of profound discussions with villagers on the relevance of education for their children’s upward social mobility and development.  Crucially, most of them contemplated that education their children are receiving may not contribute to their personal and social development. They said that even if their children are qualified they do not get job opportunities. For them, a job refers to sarkari jagir (jobs in the government offices).  They have developed such a belief because they have seen that many qualified people (even with Masters Degree) are not employed yet and youth have been flying to the gulf countries for jobs.  It is unfortunate that youth population in villages is disappearing rapidly. Due to this, it is becoming tougher for the elderly people to cultivate farm lands, which are left barren in many places.

The villagers also said that they did not have a close relationship with any people (especially political leaders) with certain kind of power. They strongly believe that without having afno manche (relatives), as argued my Bista, there is a little chance of being employed in Nepal. General people accept as true that one’s merit is judged on the basis of whether or not he or she is close to the people with power especially to the top party leaders. A middle-aged farmer from Ilam contended that although his son is qualified and experienced he was denied a job in an NGO in which another person who was less qualified was offered the job because the NGO was run by the friend of latter’s brother.  

These voices indicate that Nepalese society is guided by the chakari system in which meritocracy is considered less important than personal relationship. One of the most crucial manifestations of the system is the ‘taken-for-granted-culture’ that is seen in almost all institutions (e.g. politics, NGOs, schools and universities). We see that most of the present political leaders from the big parties are not ideologically indoctrinated with their respective political camps rather they have sympathy from the top leaderships. There are very few leaders who have developed themselves by raising critical issues against their party leaderships.  As the cadres are always afraid of being penalized by the leadership they do not elevate their voices although they know that the leadership is doing right things.

Another form of chakari  is chukli, the way one plays a double role.  Generally, Nepalese spend their most of times talking about others. They do not really discuss a particular agenda or issue rather gossip on other’s personal matter for hours. In order to please the leadership of any institution, an employee or cadre reports him what other people (from the same institution or outside) was talking (or not even talking) about him. Such chukli system not only weakens the leadership skill but also ruins the integrity of any institution. There are many cases of increased enmity among people including family break-ups due to chukli.

This is applicable to the political parties as well. Those leaders who do not have a vision and leadership skill spend most of their times criticizing each other. Rather than talking about the issues of national development, our leaders have confined themselves in grumbling each other. This tradition has not only promoted the chakari system but also weakened their political spirit.  Rather than promoting fair and free democratic system, our leaders are engaging themselves in fostering nepotism promoted by chakari and chukli. For them the best person is one who can be around them every moment than the one who is critical to them.

The chakari-produced leaders have very little idea of leadership and negotiation skills. They cannot contribute to strengthen democracy and do not even think of national development. Chakari not only makes a leader resistant to diverse ideas and workforces but also increases dependency. The lack of our leaders’ productivity at critical moments is the result of their mind-set grounded on the chakari.  What is urgent for our political leaders, at this moment,  is to put chakari and chukli (can be external and internal) aside and discuss agendas for the national development. They must promote critical dialogues in their own parties that lead us to build a free, fair and harmonious Nepalese society.     

Country without people

The centrality of ‘people’ in a democratic polity is undeniable. People’s voices are the most significant aspect of any democratic country. People are an invisible yet powerful center for the sustainability of democracy. However, how and to what extent are their voices heard by the political parties that tend to represent them? Why do political parties often forget people’s mandates? These are some critical issues to be discussed in the changed political context of the country.   
Just before and after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly (CA), I am having a series of informal discussions with people from different walks of life. I went to my birthplace to meet my parents earlier this month. During my informal discussions, the villagers expressed their strong discontent with ‘Rajnitikaran’ (politicalisation) in all sectors, especially in schools. One of my seniors said there was likely a fight among Maoists, CPN-UML, Nepali Congress and Limbuwan cadres regarding a controversial recruitment of a new ‘Rahat’ (relief) quota teacher in a local school where I finished my primary education. He criticised that, in the name of consensus, political parties are recruiting their cadres in different committees and activities related to development in the village. Jokingly, he said that he was offered some opportunities by different political parties if he would join their parties. During another talk, a teacher from a neighbouring village said, “I was challenged by the cadres of political parties when I raised questions regarding the decision of the ‘sarbadaliya samyantra’ [all party mechanism] to allocate the budget haphazardly in the village.” He further shared that his query about the sovereignty of people is simply ignored by the ‘samyantra’. He said the members of the ‘samyantra’ turned a deaf ear when he asked them whose voices—the people’s or party leaders’—should receive attention in democracy. 
These two anecdotes are examples only. The contentions shown by the common people during my visit to eastern Nepal reflect two issues. First, there are many cases of abuse of authority and misuse of the budget allocated for the village development committees (VDC). Although political parties fight each other over agendas, they make consensus on sharing budgets equally. It is apparent that almost all developmental budgets are handled by the cadres of different parties, as they have their hold in the consumers’ committee. Second, in the guise of development, political parties are free to impose their worldviews through the ‘samyantra’. Surely, this is not good for democracy. But there are two fundamental reasons behind the emergence of this situation. First, all political parties know—even in each ward of a VDC—the number of party cadres. They not only distribute memberships to the people, but also appease them financially (not ideologically). Through unions, political parties also know the number of teachers, professors, doctors, students, engineers, pilots and so on who are affiliated with their parties. It seems that through politicalisation of all sectors, Nepali society is fragmented in accordance with the number of political parties. This fragmentation has already weakened the integrity of civil society. Due to this, political parties are not really worried about their accountability to the people. They often break their promises for nation building, as they are confident that their cadres must vote for them again. If party cadres do not vote for their leaders, they are penalized. They cannot be critical about their leaders and the agendas of parties. This leads to the imposition of central and top leaders’ ideology to the cadres at the bottom. 
Second, indirectly, people are forced to become a member of a political party. For example, all teachers should be affiliated with a political party for their professional security. Without being affiliated with a party, it seems that people are not able to get jobs, because being a member of a political party is the first criterion to be qualified for employment. This may be good for the political parties to win elections, but due to lack of neutral and critical mass, political parties not only become weaker, but also tend to be less accountable to the people.  
Present political chaos results from a lack of a critical population. We have developed a unique culture where people are not ready to accept the mistakes of the parties they are affiliated with. Everything that is accomplished by their party is right, and whatever is accomplished by others’ parties is wrong. Why are our political parties not able to forge consensus even if they sit for a series of talks? It is because they are part of a political culture where whatever other parties say is always wrong. This indicates that our parties need to revamp the way they are functioning. 
First, they have to develop a culture of listening to others, critically assessing their own agendas and seeing how they can develop a common ground to forge consensus with other parties. Second, they have to rethink their organisational structures. Rather than forcing people to take membership, political parties have to take their agendas to the grassroots level and educate people about their vision for national development. They have to let people decide which parties’ agendas are better. This will ultimately foster a culture of political harmony and respect for other people’s sovereignty. Last but not least, political parties, as a key agency to foster democracy, should think of increasing the critical mass of people who can closely assess their ideologies and activities. In the absence of ‘people’, as it is happening currently, political parties cannot develop their ability to govern the nation and contribute to social transformation and nation-building. 

Globalization, neoliberalism and commodification of English in Nepal

 Globalization

Nepal never had an English colonial history nor has it recognised English as an official language in its constitutions until now. Yet, the English language has already become a principal component of the Nepali education system. Two key forces—globalisation and neoliberalism—have contributed in this regard. When Nepal opened its door to foreigners after the end of the Rana regime in 1950, the flow of foreigners for tourism, business, research, development, religion and education increased briskly in Nepal. The number of multinational companies and international non-governmental organisations is increasing these days due to Nepal's membership in various international organisations such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the United Nations. With their arrival, foreign languages (like English) and cultures have also made their visible space in the country, especially in big cities like Kathmandu and Pokhara. Cinemas, cafes and English medium schools now proliferate these cities.
With the tourist industry booming, English has reached rural places like Jomsom, Muktinath and Dhorpatan. We see illiterate people who sell flowers, Nepali arts, clothes and other gift items in various tourist spots like Dakshin Kali, Thamel, Pashupati, and Pokhara speaking survival English to communicate with
foreign tourists. Realising the importance of English in tourist areas, public schools are gradually shifting their medium of instruction from Nepali to English, as has been the case in Ilam district as reported by The Post (25/01/2009). Quoting a fifth grader, Sandhya Rai, The Post reported, “Hundreds of children in this tourist destination are unable to realise their dream of speaking fluent English. Taking into account the need of English medium education in this remote village of Meghma, Saraswoti Primary School has begun teaching English from the very beginning'. English speaking tourists who visit this area mainly for trekking respond to their use of English and encourage them by providing books and stationery.
With the arrival of foreign tourists, major cities like Kathmandu and Pokhara have already become global cities marked by hybrid languages and cultures. Places like Thamel and Lake Side (Pokhara) are full of restaurants, cafes, hotels, bars,
and recreation centres. Even a rickshaw-puller communicates in broken English with foreigners in these places. Major cities are full of shopping malls where foreign goods are sold.
Technology is also contributing significantly to the expansion of English in Nepal. Although we have only had mobile technology in this country for the past 12 years, according to Nepal Telecom (NTC), the total number of mobile phone users in Nepal reached 14,104,011 in January 2011. Recent statistics from the Nepal Telecom Authority (NTA) shows that 4.78 million mobile subscribers use Ncell whereas 4.71 million use NTC mobile services. The International Telecom Union (ITU) estimates that more than 811,780 (2.8 percent) Nepalis use the Internet (March 2011). Facebook and Twitter are already famous social networking tools. The ITU estimates that 685,280 Nepalis use Facebook (December 2010), which is significantly less than the number 1,221,040  (4.22 percent of the total population), as reported by Socialbakers, one of the biggest Facebook statistics portals in the world. Whatever the exact number of users may be, Facebook now isn’t merely a popular tool for communication in English but equally important for various social and political campaigns. 

Neoliberalism and commodification 
Since its democratic journey began in 1990, Nepal has adopted a neoliberal economic policy—an unregulated free market in which the private sector and donor agencies have received a notable space in the nation building process. Owing to the state's mantra of private-public partnership, private investment has become a key source of the national economy.
Neoliberalism has not only legitimised the role of English as a global language but also projected it as a 'commodity' to be sold especially in education. It has paved the way for the opening of private schools (English medium), many of which are exploiting parents by using English as a key selling point. Generally, as private schools are primarily opened with a business purpose first; they are concerned with earning money in the guise of quality education.
Many private schools are successful in propagating this ideology: namely, learning English means receiving quality education. Innocent parents uphold the view that children will get better job opportunities if they are educated in private schools. The School Leaving Certificate Examinations (SLC) results seem to support this ideology in that, every year, the top ten students are mostly from
private schools. For example, the SLC results (2010/2011), which were published on 20 June, 2011, show enormous disparity between public and private schools in terms of pass percentage, a 90 percent pass rate in private schools and only 46 percent in public ones.
But how many students who graduate from private English medium schools get better jobs? Are they really competent for jobs available within the country and beyond? Do better SLC results equal a better education? These questions require further research and more discussion.
Phyak is pursuing a doctorate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is also Secretary of the Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association (NELTA)

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. 

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

On sale

Do you want to purchase goats for this Dashain?

What size do you need?

Expensive or cheaper?

Local or imported?

Don’t worry

A perfect goat shop has been opened

At the heart of the city

Buy two and get one free

(Photo: The Telegraph)

Thousands of hunters and fellow goats

Brilliant juvenile

Enduring aged

Sacrificed to assemble six hundred one

Caste, ethnicity, gender, age and ecology represented

Quality guaranteed 

Height, weight and color mixed

Some bleat  

Others sleep

Very few frail

My goats are on sale

(Photo: Photobucket)

I fed them for three years

Unruly and petulant always

Now I’m too tired to bear

I’ve no optimism and endurance

My goats and myself are on sale, hence 

Hospital

Hard-working doctors

Obedient nurses

Silent atmosphere

Patient patients

Incredible relief
Timely care

Attentive attendant

Luminous pain

Education business

Last month my relative’s came Kathmandu for his higher education after passing the School Leaving Certificate Examination (SLC) with distinction marks. He came to me and asked for help to find out right higher secondary school (often known as college) for him. I was puzzled where to send him as I could see that there are colleges every nook of my residence, New Baneshwar. Although I have not counted the number of colleges, I can see that new Baneshwar chowk is already covered with colorful and big flex boards projecting the advertisements of various colleges. There is no any place left to put even a single more board. With my puzzlement, I suggested him that he had to visit as many colleges as possible and choose one which he liked. With his excitement he visited some colleges but he was not able to decide which college he had to choose.

He had collected attractive brochures of many colleges. Some colleges have offered him scholarships, free hostel and transportation as well. He also said that in some colleges he was welcomed by beautiful girls with garland and offered him breakfast. But his excitement declined when he didn’t see infrastructures printed in the brochure in the college. Neither there was that attractive building nor the basketball court. Classrooms were under a tinned-roofed cottage.  Although they said that the seats were available only for limited number of students, there were no any students enrolled. This is only an example of how private colleges in Kathmandu are operated with mere business purpose rather than for academic excellence. I am not saying that all private colleges are like the one as mentioned here but it is true that the operation of private colleges has become no more than the operation of a bank in which some filthy rich people invest to become even richer exploiting poor and innocent people like my relative’s son.

It is interesting to see that majority of private colleges have put various renowned professors’ name in their brochures and TV advertisements to attract more students. As they see the names of professors and Drs, students believe in the academic quality of the colleges. However, it is not transparent that whether those professors really take classes in those colleges. What are their roles and responsibilities? This is not clear. In many cases, students do not see those professors’ face during their study in the college. I have also seen that distinguished public figures from different sectors have been used as ambassador of various private colleges in Kathmandu. My humble request to all distinguished personalities is: Could you please ensure the quality of education that the institute you are involved with? Could you please make it accessible to even poor but deserving candidates? Could you please not promote unhealthy competition in education by stopping propaganda strategies in the advertisement of colleges?

An issue emerged with the mushrooming of the private colleges is the commercialization of education. It has already indicated that education institutes are being established only for the purpose of earning money rather than helping to fulfill the mission of the providing quality education to the students. We could see that there is no any strict rule and comprehensive mechanism for monitoring overall operation of private colleges. It is ridiculous to see that the founders of colleges rent a building and start a college after getting permission from Higher Secondary Education Board (HSEB). And they charge expensive fees to the students to cover rent and expenses for other infrastructure. It is also bizarre to see that HSEB is giving affiliation to a large number of private colleges every year without any comprehensive feasibility study of infrastructure. Another interesting issue is that HSEB does not have any scientific criteria regarding the distance between colleges. We can see that there are more than four colleges within the same locality in the Kathmandu Valley. At the same time, due to lack of supervision from HSEB, private colleges are also exploiting students by putting them into a cramped classroom and by not providing them with basic facilities e.g. library, playground, drinking water, laboratory and so on.

There are so many disadvantages of providing affiliation to a large number of private colleges especially in the Kathmandu valley haphazardly. On the one hand, there is unhealthy competition among colleges and on the other hand, education will be simply an ‘object-for-sale’. We have already seen that different private institutes are split due to dispute among the founders and they have opened their own private colleges after getting affiliation from HSEB easily. They have left no stone unturned to attract students in their colleges. In order to stop such a commercialization of education and to promote quality and sustainable education institutes, HSEB should stop providing affiliation to private colleges to run 10+2 classes especially in those where there are too many colleges already. We could see heavy traffic jams due to a large number of students during office hour in Baneshwar, Kumaripati, Lagankhel, Tinkune, Chabahil and other areas in Kathmandu. Instead, HSEB can provide its affiliation in rural areas. 

HSEB should also make a policy which gives students equal opportunity to get admission in private colleges. It is not fair to bar students, who secure low marks from government schools and rural areas, from getting admission in any college in Kathmandu. But as this trend is prevalent now, two kinds of private colleges are in existence – colleges where students from rich family and urban areas with distinction mark study and the colleges where students from poor family with poor marks study. This distinction has already created a clear social division in the society. If this situation persists for longer period higher secondary education will be no other than divider in the  society and business for the filthy rich people. 

I am Maailee

I am Maailee, an outsider.

I have no home, no  family..

I wear ragged clothes and beg for my food. 

My destiny ends nowhere.

I remember those days when I was a servant

And the day my landlord decided not to keep me.

I had no single rupee.

Losing my hopes and dreams,

I sheltered at a temple,

Covering my body with newspaper.

I slept on the pavement.

Contemplating the endless miseries of life

I made an innocent attempt to end it.

Now, the statues are my only relatives.

They help to gather food for me.

They collect people around me

Who give me something out of pity -

And call me Maailee.

A night at the Aryaghat

It was 18 April 2011. The weather in Kathmandu was pleasant due to occasional rain. I was queuing at a petrol pump for 4 hours to fuel my motorbike. My cell phone rang around 1 pm. My friend, Tanka said, ‘the dead body of Jhalak dai is coming tonight from Qatar’. First I could not believe what Tanka was saying. ‘What’re you saying?’  I asked.  He said, ‘Yes, Jhalak dai passed away one and half month ago in Qatar’.

I had never known that Jhalak dai had been to Qatar. I had known him as a hard working, sincere and cooperative handsome uncle in the community. I still remember his charming white face and activism in sports in the school where both of us studied. I had not seen him for seven years.

Tanks told me that Jhalak dai’s body was being brought at the Tribhuvan International Airport Kathmandu at 10.30 pm. From my residence, New Baneshwar, I drove my motorbike to the airport where I met Jhalak dai’s brothers (including TB Sir, my teacher), Kaki (his wife), son, sisters, daughter, and many other relatives. All were in a sad mood and waiting for his body. Kaki was speechless and her eyes red with full of tear. I could easily guess that she could not even think what was happening around her.

I thought that I should speak with her. But I could not even produce a word. I had no idea about what to say. I could not decide whether I should ask her about Jhalak dai.

There was a huge crowd of people waiting for their relatives coming from different gulf countries. There were four international flights landing within the interval of 15 minutes. Taxiwalas and hotelwalas were eagerly waiting for tourists with placard. It was ten 10.30 pm. The screen in the waiting room at the arrival terminal indicated that the Qatar Airways just landed. We started moving. After waiting for half an hour, a thin man on leather jacket came out the terminal and asked whether there were relatives of Jhalak dai. In a second, we surrounded him.

‘My name is Aftab Miya. I am Jhalak’s friend’, he introduced.

He also asked whether Jhalak’s brother and wife were present there.  After talking to us for a second, he kept a file out of his small bag and gave to Jhalak’s brother, TB sir. We rushed to the reporting office. The officer there had already prepared necessary documents. He went through all the documents related to Jhalak dai that Aftab had brought from Qatar. I saw that there were a letter of the Embassy of Nepal at Qatar, a postmortem report and a letter from the company where Jhalak dai worked for two years.

I was very curious to know about Jhalak dai’s death. Aftab was not sure about how Jhalak dai died. But he said that the company where he worked with Jhalak dai was not a good company. They were not paid salary regularly even if it was very low. They didn’t get any kinds of facilities as it was agreed with the manpower company. ‘The company owner was so bad man that he never gave leave to them’, Aftab said. He became so emotional when he started talking about Jhalak dai.

“He was so sincere, hardworking and cooperative’, he praised him.

 ‘The company was reluctant to send Jhalak’s body to Nepal. He was such a bad man’, Aftab continued.

‘We stopped working for some days in the company to force him to send Jhalak’s body to his relative in Nepal’.

It was already 11.45 when we finished paper works to receive Jhalak dai’s body. We had to get custom clearance as well. After looking at the postmortem report, the officer at the custom counter said, ‘Oh again, heart attack?’ ‘Workers do not receive insurance if they die of heart attack’, he added.

‘Oh my god! Jhalak dai’s family is not getting anything. How’ll Kaki, who doesn’t have any job, manage the expenditure of her children’s education?’ I asked myself.

The dream of Jhalak dai and his children to live happily after his return to the village with enough money was shattered with his death at his early 40s.

A policeman at the Airport said, ‘the number of dead body coming from gulf countries is increasing everyday’.

After checking all records, the custom officer took us to a cargo room where I saw a long red wooden box wrapped with white plastic. My body was trembling and eyes were full of tear. I was hurried to see Jhalak dai’s face. It was already midnight when we brought the coffin outside the terminal. Kaki, his children and other relatives started crying at the airport. Putting the coffin in a van, we rushed to Aryaghat, Pashupati where many people had come to attend funeral of Jhalak dai.

We opened the coffin with the help of a big sickle. There was another tinned box within the wooden box. The body was wrapped with a plastic bag and woolen clothe. I broke with tear when I saw his frozen body which was so hard and full of ice. We paid last tribute by putting flowers on his body.

Kaki could not hold herself. She was crying breathlessly. I felt as if the entire world was listening to her sympathetically.

How restlessly she must be waiting for Jhalak dai’s presence in her life? I thought when Jhalak dai’s body was burning in the fire at the Aryaghat. It was already 4.30am when his entire body changed into ash.

                                              

I regret for being educated

I understand that while raising such questions educated people (like me) may think that my views are cynical. However, I think time has come to self-assess our own role, as a so-called educated person,  in the society.

Quite recently, I am collecting news reports on anti-humanity, corruption, violence, conflict and war from various national newspapers for my own research purpose. As it is not possible to bring all of them here, I will try to cover them under major themes. Let me start with a killing of a college girl. In June 2009, Khyati Shrestha was killed by her own teacher Biren Shrestha. He amputated the body, kept in the refrigerator for some days and threw different parts in different places. He demanded ransom even after killing Khyati with the help of his another student. You can read the detail news here http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Life+term+for+Khyati+Shrestha+killers+&NewsID=266298 and watch the video in this site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sTegs1rn0k. Similar kind of crime was committed by a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Armed Policy Force last moth (January,22, 2012). The DIG killed his wife, took away her dead body in his own car and burned it (You can read the news details at this link http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41099).  Brawls among students supporting different political parties are usual practice in campuses (please watch this video http://www.mastinepal.com/thread54043.html). The involvement of political leaders in the abuse of the authority of various natures always dominate the pages and screens of media. The abuse of red passport is only one example. http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2011/may/may08/news09.php

If we critically analyze above news we find the involvement of literate/educated people in these crimes. This situation raises some questions: Why are educated people more hostile, dishonest, impatient, inhumane and egotistic? Are they contributing to social development  and harmony or creating mistrust and violence? I understand while raising such questions all educated people (like me) may think that my views are cynical. However, I think time has come to self-assess our own role, being so-called educated people, in the society . Is our education system able to prepare students to work for the prosperity of human civilization? Are our schools and universities able to produce students who can do something independently and sincerely for humanity and democracy? These are some representative questions that emerge from the sample news reports mentioned above.

At this moment, I remember what my late grandfather reminded my father when he decided to send me to school. He said that children should not be sent to school because they become dishonest and lazy. He confidently reiterated that children learn how to cheat others, become immoral and leave their parents and society when they are educated. Before 26 years, I thought that my grandfather had very traditional and illogical judgment about the value of education. I thought he was so prejudiced orthodox Limbu old man who never liked to send their grandchildren to school.

But after reading and watching representative news reports as mentioned above for two years above, I now realize that my grandfather’s words were full of wit and wisdom. His views exactly echo  what H. L. Mencken, a famous American columnist and essayist says, ‘the main thing children learn in school is how to lie’. His views reflect what Everett W. Reimer, says in his book School is Dead (1971): ‘parents and grandparents have never known schools as places they expected their children to attend. They do know, however, what schools imply. Going to school means leaving the traditional life, moving to a different place, laying aside physical burdens for the work of the tongue and the mind…’. (The book is available online at http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dead.pdf)

While analyzing my grandfather’s opinions in relation to the involvement of educated people in various heinous activities, I find that, we, educated people are more cruel, hostile and uncooperative than the uneducated ones. With due respect to all those who have been doing magnificent works for the society, most educated people (including myself) seem to be more selfish, unsympathetic, and unsocial than the uneducated ones. We, educated people, who live mostly in urban areas with romantic charisma of globalization and pop culture, can never become a neighbor with the people living next door or room or house. Of course, these are all due to our orthodox hierarchical education system in which we are indirectly teaching our learners to be dishonest, lazier, hostile, egoistic and unsocial indirectly.

A famous educationist Ivan Illich wrote a ground-breaking book Deschooling Society (1971) in which he strongly argues that ‘by the time children go to school, they have learned how to use their bodies, how to use language and how to control their emotions. They have learned to depend upon themselves and have been rewarded for initiative in learning. In school these values are reversed’. (For details, http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/1970_deschooling.html). Critiquing on the commodification of knowledge in institutionalized education system, Illich asserts that for schools ‘knowledge is a valuable commodity which under certain circumstances may be forced into the consumer [learners]. Schools are addicted to the notion that it is possible to manipulate other people for their own good’. Illich’s assessment resonates both how I was taught and I, as a teacher, am teaching now. Rather than giving chances to exercise learners’ natural potentialities and creativity, I often force my students to follow what I think is right. They cannot ask any question and share their views constructed in their rich socio-cultural contexts. I never count them as an agency and rich source of capital. By doing this, I am killing students’ ability to self-initiate and take ownerships of their own learning. Moreover, I am simply transferring prefabricated chunks of knowledge as specified in the curriculum which may not really address my learners’ needs who come from different cultura and linguistic backgrounds. I am making my students dependent, lazier, and a consumer.

Our classroom practices are instrumental for producing uncooperative and hostile learners. We create neither collaborative learning atmosphere nor try to generate diverse ideas (considering learners themselves as an abundant source of learning) so that learners can negotiate their own world views. We hardly give students chances to work and interact with friends and teachers. On contrary to this, illiterate or uneducated people in villages seem to be so cooperative. We feel the warmth of love and respect among the uneducated and rural people.

Although we aim to develop democracy and inclusion in society through education, our classroom practices are dominated by undemocratic and exclusionary deeds. We never bother engaging our students to set their own agendas and find their own learning style. We aim to build a peaceful world through education. But we, directly and indirectly,  are terrorizing children in school both mentally by giving excessive rote learning practices and homework without considering their cognitive level. We always tend to impose what we know. Ivan Illich contends that "The claim that a liberal society can be founded on the modern school is paradoxical. The safeguards of individual freedom are all cancelled in the dealings of a teacher with his pupil".

We have already isolated children from their society while teaching such contents which are not related to their life. Being a so-called educated man, I regret for not being able to meet my own granny and parents for three years. Sometimes, I feel bad about myself for being a so-educated man. Why is this modern education system  too much urban oriented? Why do educated people  not like to go back to their society? I should have returned  my village if the education I received had focused on the importance of rural life,  language, culture and indigenous knowledge. Unfortunately, through the present education system we are increasing children’s ambitions that can never be achieved. Isn’t it a good example of hypocrisy in education?

Margaret Mead, a famous anthropologist, once said, “My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of school.” This leaves a great implication that schools may not provide education in real sense. We need to assess how they are helping children to become independent, social, respectful, patient, adaptive and democratic.

Teaching English in Multicultural and Multilingual contexts: Challenges or opportunities?

(This article was published in the NeltaChoutari March Issue. For comments on the article please click this link http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/teaching-english-in-multicultural-contexts-more-challenges-and-even-more-opportunities/)

English is no longer the language of only so-called native speakers of English (e.g. Americans, British, Australians, and so on) because the number of native speakers is already outnumbered by non-native speakers of English. It has already become a global language which is not only a means of disseminating new knowledge in any field throughout the world but also a means for intercultural communication. English has already become an inevitable part of the education in Nepal though there are many challenges to make its teaching more effective. Those challenges include techniques of teaching to macro-level educational language planning in Nepal. One of the major challenges is how teaching of English can be made appropriate in the multilingual and multicultural context of Nepal. Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association (NELTA) organized its 16^th international conference in Kathmandu (18-20 February) and Pokhara (22-23 February) where more than 500 and 400 participants in the former and the latter respectively discussed challenges and opportunities of teaching English in multilingual and cross-cultural context of Nepal. There were more than 200 papers and plenary speeches of different scholars, researchers and English teachers from home and abroad. Professor Adrian Holliday from Canterbury Christ Church University, UK and Professor Emeritus John F. Fanselow, Columbia University, USA delivered key speeches on the theme of the conference ‘English in multilingual and cross-cultural contexts: exploring opportunities and meeting challenges’.

Despite the fact that indigenous languages are on the verge of extinction, there is a craze of learning English among students and parents also aspire to educate their children in English medium schools. This aspiration has been already reflected in the educational language policy of the Ministry of Education (MoE) to introduce English from Grade One in community schools. In the same way, the MoE has already given the authority to management committees of the community managed public schools to shift themselves from Nepali to English medium of instruction. The number of schools switching to English medium is increasing every year. On the other hand, English is both subject and medium of instruction from pre-primary level in private schools. However, there are many challenges to teach English to students who come from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. One of the challenges is that whether or not students get chance to utilize their own cultural and linguistic knowledge in schools while learning English. Some questions pertinent to the theme of the conference were: how our socio-cultural background can shape teaching and learning of English? How can we teach English while addressing linguistic and cultural diversity of Nepal? How can we foster critical and creative thinking skills? There were discussions on how learners’ prior linguistic and cultural knowledge helps in learning English. The papers presented in the conference provided a great implication that students’ cultural knowledge can be a resource for teaching and learning English.

Professor Holliday argued that the English language can foster intercultural communication among the children from diverse cultural as well as linguistic backgrounds. Focusing on the importance of children’s prior knowledge, he reiterated that teachers of English should capitalize multicultural experiences that children bring into the classroom while teaching English. He also put a significant point that teaching of English should be contextual and we need to educate children about the nature of English in relation to society. This clearly indicates that to address the expectations and experiences of children from diverse cultural backgrounds, teachers’ role as a passive-technician is not enough rather they have to be a transformative intellectual. Teachers should understand that classroom is socially constructed and historically situated and they should create such an environment where students from various backgrounds can get opportunities to utilise their prior knowledge. In general, English teachers are not simply in-charges of classroom but also agents for social change. They can also contribute to foster democracy and critical thinking skill by creative inclusive learning environment where students can exercise their values, assumptions and identities shaped by local, national and global socio-cultural settings and expectations. In the same line, Professor John F. Fanselow, another key speaker in the conference, focused on how students can be taught creatively so that they get more opportunities to use English. Breaking rules of traditional teaching, he discussed that teachers have to arouse curiosity of students to resolve various puzzles themselves rather than showing their fault while they make mistakes. Emphasising the importance of thinking process, he stated that students should be given enough time to think while teaching English. He also presented the idea of recording and transcribing learners’ classroom language which can be an abundant source for teaching English. This clearly indicates that we need to rethink the way we are teaching English in Nepal. Some crucial questions that may help us to further our debates are: How often do we give students chance to think critically? Are we aware of their socio-cultural backgrounds? Have we tried doing something new or beating the same old drum? Professor Fanslow’s presentations were all about deconstructing the old rules of teaching English and reconstructing alternative ones to engage students in doing things.

Professor Abhi Subedi, critically assessed the consequences of detaching teaching English from cross-cultural context in Nepal. Analyzing the socio-political and historical discourses, he strongly condemned that our practices of teaching English have not been able to address socio-cultural realties. He argued that ‘methods [of teaching] … failed to suture the diverse experiences of English teachers in this country’ and is critical about teachers’ resistance towards change. He showed his concern about the fact that teaching and learning of English has been confined within the classroom. This clearly indicates that there is a huge gap between socio-cultural reality and teaching of English in Nepal. He appealed that we can design syllabuses and can develop viable methods of teaching by considering our own multilingual and multicultural realities. He also mentioned that now there is no point in following British or American Standard English to teach English in Nepal. In the same way, focusing on the importance of English, Professor Jai Raj Awasthi presented that three language policy (mother tongue, Nepali and English) can be a pragmatic policy for placing English in multilingual and multicultural context of Nepal.

The reflection of the only mega event of its kind in Nepal points out some crucial issues regarding teaching of English. First, there is an urgent need of taking the ownership of English rather than considering it as a ‘foreign’ language (in literal sense, not in pedagogical and political sense). Since there is a craze of learning English even in rural areas of the country, we have to closely observe how English is being produced (Spoken and Written) to indentify our own variety of English. Second, we have to work hard on designing syllabuses, writing textbooks and producing learning materials which address expectations of Nepalese children from multilingual and multicultural backgrounds. Third, we have to explore more opportunities and should try developing alternative ways of teaching to foster students’ creative and critical thinking skills. Overall, we have to deconstruct the tradition that confines English in the classroom, break the rules that make students produce only minimal language (formulaic speech), smash the hierarchy between teachers and students to foster two-way communication, demolish monolithic and mono-cultural world view to advance intercultural communication and forget prescriptions of any method to instill critical thinking skills for independent learning in students.