Ongoing developments and structural challenges of language-in-education policy in Chin State
By Nicolas Salem-Gervais and Salai Van Cung Lian (UK)
KEYWORDS: schooling, language policy, Chin State, ethnic minority, decentralization, language standardization, local curriculum
Abstract
Language-in-education policies have constituted an enduring concern under the successive political eras in Burma/Myanmar,1 with critical implications regarding cultural and linguistic diversity, access to education, as well as the emergence of a nation. While this issue has often been described too simplistically, the overall sidelining of ethnic minority languages in formal education under military regimes is nevertheless patent. The national language-in-education policy has recently evolved, slowly at first, in the wake of the 2011 political transition towards democratization and decentralization (Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020). In 2019–2020, 64 languages were taught in government schools throughout the country, a few periods every week, as subjects. While this shift is insufficient for proponents of Mother Tongue-Based Education (MTBE), the ongoing development of the Local Curriculum gives the possibility to States and Regions to progressively incorporate some local content in the syllabus, including the languages, cultures and histories of the groups living in their respective territories, supposedly up to high school.
Based on an analytical framework developed in previous publications (notably Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020) and series of interviews conducted in 2019 and 2020, this paper deals with the teaching of Chin languages in government schools, with a focus on Chin State itself. We discuss the rationale for including ethnic minority languages in formal schooling in the Chin context, provide a brief historical background of the issue, and examine the latest developments and prospects of language-in-education policy in Chin State, such as the project of promoting a limited number of “major” languages as common languages.”
The challenges involved in producing a list of languages with official recognition, as opposed to dialectal variations with a less formal status, constitute a central question in this paper. As noted by linguist Peterson (2017), the classical language vs dialect issue is indeed particularly relevant in highly multilingual Chin State, where language politics, underpinned by a multitude of faith-based written cultures, often militates against the idea of two regional varieties being considered two dialects of the same language. Illustrating the fractal patterns often observed by language ideology scholars (Irvine and Gal, 2000), this situation leads to what seems to constitute two opposite threats: the prospect of what could be called “ethno-linguistic balkanization,” on the one hand, and the perspective of giving priority to certain languages over others, which would entail multiple and significant tradeoffs (in terms of maintaining language diversity, improving access to education, and promoting “national reconciliation”) on the other.
Introduction
With 135 officially recognized ethnic groups and an estimated 117 living languages,2 Myanmar is a country of complex ethnolinguistic diversity. Managing this diversity and the issue of ethnic minorities’ political representation has constituted a central challenge in the process of building a nation-state, with critical implications in a chaotic contemporary political history marked by decades of multiple conflicts and successive military dictatorships.
Among these issues, the language-in-education policy, and more specifically the place attributed (or not) to ethnic minority languages in formal education, has constituted an enduring concern. The absence (or scarcity) of ethnic minority languages in formal education has indeed regularly been pointed out by actors from multiple ethnic minorities as tangible evidence of a “Burmanisation” process, by contrast to the federal grounds the country was supposedly built on. To this day, choices in terms of language-in-education policy continue to have deep implications in several critical dimensions of the country’s social life: maintenance of language and culture diversity; performance of ethnic minorities in the education system; and fulfilment of the State’s “national reconciliation” objective.
Until recently, little attention was given to the ongoing shift of language-in-education policy in government schools, attended by a total of nine million children (including five million from primary schools). The current policy, of which the State governments as well as literature and culture committees (LCCs) are critical actors, is largely based on the 2014–15 education law (Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020). This legal text was until recently, at best, described as not going far enough, notably for not prescribing mother tongue-based education (MTBE), a model which entails a transition of the medium of instruction from the local “ethnic” language towards the national language throughout primary education, and is used by some of the Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEPs—and most emblematically the Mon National Education Committee).
These language-in-education policy conversations are certainly relevant to Chin State, a region of Myanmar where the sheer ethno-linguistic diversity, even by Myanmar standards, creates acute challenges. Historically, the elusive prospect of a common language has been a central aspiration in the mobilization, most notably by cultural elites and various political actors, of a common “Chin” identity, a term that finds its origins, according to Bradley (2019) in a “Burmese collective exonym for a cluster of Tibeto-Burman speaking groups.”3 Meanwhile, the much-disputable (and disputed) official nomenclature recognizes not fewer than 53 Chin groups, and none of the alternative ethno-linguistic classifications appears consensual.
In this paper, through a lens that has been used to discuss language-in-education policy throughout Myanmar (Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020), we thus aim at bringing the focus on Chin State (as well as neighboring regions populated by Chin people). The primary method of data collection used in that perspective is the semi-structured interview, conducted by both authors successively in May–June 2019 and April–June 2020, and including LCCs, Ministry of Education (MoE) and Ministry of Ethnic Affairs (MoEA) representatives, Regional ministers, members of the Chin State parliament, political party leaders, local teachers, headmasters and educators, retired Chin State education experts, as well as UNICEF representatives.
We will first discuss different aspects of the rationale for including ethnic minority languages in the schools of Chin State, before moving on, in the next section, to a brief historical background of the issue, ending with the description of the ongoing policy shifts in Myanmar in general and Chin State in particular.
In the third section, we will describe what seems to be two of the main challenges in the process of including Chin languages in formal education, namely: schools catering to children from multiple ethnolinguistic backgrounds (a situation which is relatively common in urban areas) and the difficulties often attached to the process of determining what constitutes a language, to be taught in schools, or rather a dialect, with a less formal status. Finally, we will provide a few case-studies outlines, and briefly discuss the implications of prioritizing a small number of Chin languages in formal education.
1. Why include ethnic minority languages in the schools of Chin State?
While the 20th century has largely been characterized by the building of nation-states around single standardized national languages, the 1990s and 2000s, parallel to an increasing consciousness of the eroding world biodiversity, have witnessed a growing awareness of the diminishing cultural and linguistic diversity (Grinevald and Costa, 2010). During these two decades, most countries, including Myanmar, have ratified international declarations initiated by the United Nations or INGOs, aiming at protecting minorities’ cultural and linguistic rights. These declarations, the latest of which is the 2019 Bangkok statement on language and inclusion, encourage a departure from the largely monolingual education models used to build most nation-states around the world, including in SouthEast Asia (Sercombe and Tupas, 2014).
In this regard, during the last decade, heterogenous and limited, but nonetheless significant developments have occurred among Southeast Asian nations (Kosonen, 2017), including Myanmar (Salem-Gervais, 2018; Bradley, 2019).
The rationale for including ethnic minority languages in education can be described as three-fold: preserving linguistic and cultural diversity, fostering “national reconciliation” and improving access to education. We will now describe these three dimensions and briefly examine their relevance to the specific situations of Myanmar in general, and of Chin State in particular.
Preserving linguistic and cultural diversity
According to a 2016 estimate of the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ Ethnologue database, there are 7,117 living languages spoken in the world today.
Out of these, 1,249 are spoken in SouthEast Asia and 117, including 111 “indigenous,” in Myanmar. About 50% of these are somewhere in the lower half of Ethnologue’s Expanded Graded International Disruption Scale: 41 are vigorous but unstandardized, 16 are in trouble, and 4 are dying (Lewis, Simons and Fennig, 2016). Some of the languages which were documented in the 1960’s (such as Megyaw and Samang) are no longer spoken today (Bradley, 2015, 2018).
The absence or scarcity of ethnic minority languages in education has been described as “one of the most important direct causal factors in this (process of) disappearance” of languages around the world today, amounting to a form of “linguistic and/or cultural genocide” and “crime against humanity” (Skutnabb-Kangas and Dunbar, 2010).
These strong terms are sometimes relayed by ethnic cultural rights advocates in Myanmar (Mon, 2014). Other researchers’ observations lead to somewhat qualifying these statements, as the majority of the children’s language development often happens outside of the schools (Murray, 2016). Nevertheless, a genuine shift towards a more inclusive language-in-education policy is generally considered one of the key aspects to the preservation of the linguistic and cultural diversity of a country (Asia-Pacific Multilingual Education Working Group, 2013).
The ongoing language policy shift in Myanmar is thus liable to have a significant impact in this dimension, which is certainly relevant to linguistically heterogeneous Chin State and its 478,801 inhabitants (2014 census). Out of the Chin languages identified by Ethnologue (see later in this paper for a discussion of linguistic classifications), only 5 are described as dispersed, or threatened, but 20 of them count less than 20,000 speakers, including 8 that are spoken by less than 5,000.
Fostering “national reconciliation” The most direct and obvious link between inclusiveness in language-in-education policy and the political aim of “national reconciliation,” reaffirmed by successive governments, is maybe the inclusion and participation of the EBEPs (those linked to ethnic armed organizations first and foremost) into some sort of national education framework, in connection with the peace process.
While this particular aspect has little direct implications in Chin State, just like in the rest of the country, the overall idea, backed by tangible evidence, that the State is not a threat to ethnic minority identities is likely to induce long term political benefits.
Parallel to actual language diversity erosion, the theme of linguistic and cultural endangerment, and the necessity to resist it, is central in Chin politics. These views echo wider perceptions of cultural loss, which seem particularly prevalent in Myanmar, and can be traced back at least to the trauma of colonization, as far as Burmese nationalism is concerned.
The subsequent centrality and domination of Burmese identity and language in the independent nation-state has created the conditions for similar perceptions within minorities. Sayings along the lines of “စာေပ်ာက္ရင္ လူမ် ိဳးေပ်ာက္မယ္”(“if the written language disappears, the ethnic identity does too”) support language revitalization projects all around the country, and literature and culture committees often strive to avoid resorting to loan words in their oral and written productions, in order to promote what they perceive as a more authentic version of their respective languages, and thereby defending their respective identities (Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020).
These perceptions and efforts to protect the language and culture from external threats and influences are prevalent in Chin State too. In 2017 and 2018 for instance, signpost saying “Lai people, speak Lai language” or “In order to free ourselves from being swallowed by other ethnic groups, let’s no longer include the language of other people when we speak” could be seen in many shops of Thantlang and Hakha, exhortations primarily directed against the abundant use of Burmese loan words when speaking in Lai. While the multiple and sometimes conflicting implications of a society mobilized for the defense of numerous, often multi-layered and intertwined ethnic identities will be discussed later in this paper, in Chin State just like in the rest of the country, the reintroduction of local languages in formal education is thus likely to constitute an important step towards diminishing the perceptions of a systematic “Burmanization” policy, thus contributing to “national reconciliation.”
Improving access to education
Finally, research around the world shows that the inclusion of ethnic minority languages in schooling often improves access to and performance in education of these populations. This is particularly true for MTBE models, which entail a transition from the local language to the national language, throughout primary and secondary cycles, thereby alleviating the “language-barrier” faced by children whose mother tongue is not the national language (see for instance, Dutcher, 2001; Malone and Paraide, 2011).
Implementing such system throughout Myanmar and its 47,005 government schools (MoE, 2019) appears particularly challenging for the foreseeable future (Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020).
Nonetheless, the specific difficulties faced by children whose mother tongue is not Burmese have been explicitly acknowledged by the ministry of education in its National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) 2016–2021 which states that: “The ‘language barrier’ is also a significant factor for children from nationalities groups that contributes to their dropping out of school.”
In practice, assessing the relative importance of this particular issue compared to other obstacles to formal education appears complex. The Burmese language-based education system has often been described as a central, if not the main problem in the education of ethnic minority children (Shalom, 2011; South and Lall, 2016; Ethnic Nationalities Affairs Center , 2018). It must be noted that the education system has had plenty of pressing issues during the last decades (e.g., with funding, corruption, and teaching method) and that other factors contribute to early dropouts (including poverty, conflict, topography and distance to schools, student/ teacher ratio, attraction of neighboring countries, rural/urban differentiated perceptions, attitudes and practices).
Emphasizing language issues above other educational problems, in resonance with the global trend to encourage the use of ethnic minority languages in education, is habitually associated with a political position inclining towards federalism and/or ethno-nationalism, and away from centralization—an illustration of the fundamentally political nature of language-in-education policy issues.
Access to education is certainly a concern in Chin State which, according to the 2014 census, has the third lowest literacy rate of the country for the aged 15 and over: 79.4%, against 89.5% for the whole country, but with a strong gradient between northern townships— close to 90%—and southern townships —close to or below 70% (as well as an important gap, for older generations, between males and females).10 According to MoE’s figures, primary completion rate was below 58% in 2017–2018 (against 69% for the national level, and with the lowest figures in Paletwa, Mindat, Tonzang and Thantlang townships).
Chin State is also often at the bottom of the ranking regarding success at the matriculation exam, typically under 20% (while Mon State, for instance, is often close to or above 40%). In this regard,
according to a recent survey,11 the performance of Chin State’s students is particularly low in English and subjects for which the textbooks are in English, findings that are deeply counter-intuitive to most outsider’s perceptions of Chin State.
While we are not aware of studies focusing specifically on language and access to education issues in Chin State, other factors, such as poverty (Chin State is often described as by far the poorest region of the country, with 58% of its population considered poor)12, conflict (notably in Paletwa township since the beginning of the clashes between the Arakan army and the Tatmadaw in 2015) and remoteness (many villages do not possess middle or high schools, and access to school is thus often a challenge in the steep terrain of Chin State, particularly during rainy season) are certainly critical elements of explanation of the relatively poor performance of Chin State in education.
Like in other regions of Myanmar, the appointment of teachers from outside Chin State sometimes creates problems, most notably with vacant positions left between postings. However, it should also be noted that villagers do not always favor local teachers, for reasons that include their local language skills, which sometimes prove to be a double-edged sword. While using local languages to “explain” the Burmese language curriculum is often useful for lower levels of primary,13 in the absence of clear guidelines for bilingual education and given the inertia of rote-learning teaching methods, anecdotal evidence suggests that in certain situations, overusing or using inappropriately local languages in the classroom may also hamper the process of acquisition of certain skills in the national language. Regardless of this specific issue, in Chin State like elsewhere in the country, the acquisition of literacy skills in the local languages during early grades of schooling is likely to have significant educational benefits.
2. Shifting language-in-education policy in Chin State
Questions linked to literacy and language diversity have constituted an enduring and central issue for the diverse groups inhabiting what is today Chin State and its surroundings. Scott (2009) suggested that during precolonial times, nonliteracy may have been part of an overall willingness to keep the lowland States at bay, for the inhabitants of Zomia (a term itself directly rooted in the Mizo-Kuki-Chin context, since it is derived from “Zomi”—“Zo people,” understood as “highlanders,” Van Schendel, 2002). Similarly to traditions in other borderland regions of Myanmar, these issues are also rooted in folktales and origin myths of “lost magic letters” or “eaten leather book,” cursing the local populations with babelian disunity, by contrast with the Burmans, whose language survived the “age of darkness,” because it was written on stone (Sakhong, 2003; Hu, 1998).
While local population did possess rich oral traditions and records, the creation of written languages, starting in the mid-nineteenth century through contact with the missionaries14 (see Fig. 1), is often explicitly presented by the different Chin groups as the beginning of their respective histories.15 However
