See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345667190 How Many Chin Languages Should Be Taught in Government Schools? Ongoing developments and structural challenges of language-in-education policy in Chin State Article · November 2020 CITATIONS READS 0 173 2 authors: Nicolas Salem-Gervais Salai Van Cung Lian Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales University of Birmingham 12 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Chin Public Attitudes towards Corruption in Chin State View project All content following this page was uploaded by Nicolas Salem-Gervais on 10 November 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Abstract anguage-in-education policies have constituted an enduring concern under the successive political eras L 1 in Burma/Myanmar, with critical impli- cations regarding cultural and linguistic diversity, access to education, as well as the emergence of a nation. While this issue has often been described too sim- plistically, the overall sidelining of ethnic minority languages in formal education under military regimes is nevertheless patent. The national language-in-education pol- icy has recently evolved, slowly at first, in the wake of the 2011 political transition towards democratization and decentral- ization (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 Cur- riculum gives the possibility to States and Regions to progressively incorpo- rate 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 de- veloped in previous publications (nota- bly Salem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020) and series of interviews conducted in Photo: NICOLAS SALEM-GERVAIS AND SALAI VAN CUNG LIAN 2019 and 2020, this paper deals with the teaching of Chin languages in gov- How Many Chin Languages ernment schools, with a focus on Chin Should Be Taught in State itself. We discuss the rationale for including ethnic minority languages in Government Schools? formal schooling in the Chin context, provide a brief historical background Ongoing developments and structural challenges of the issue, and examine the latest of language-in-education policy in Chin State developments and prospects of lan- guage-in-education policy in Chin State, By Nicolas Salem-Gervais and Salai Van Cung Lian such as the project of promoting a lim- ited number of “major” languages as KEYWORDS: schooling, language policy, Chin State, ethnic minority, “common languages.” decentralization, language standardization, local curriculum The challenges involved in producing a list of languages with official recogni- tion, as opposed to dialectal variations 122 30 OCTOBER 2020 • VOL 1 ISSUE 1 Parami Journal of Education • ISSN 2709-2895 Parami Journal of Education • ISSN 2709-2895 30 OCTOBER 2020 • VOL 1 ISSUE 1 123 RESEARCH ARTICLE | CHIN LANGUAGES with a less formal status, constitute a cial life: maintenance of language and populated by Chin people). The primary central question in this paper. As noted culture diversity; performance of ethnic method of data collection used in that by linguist Peterson (2017), the classical minorities in the education system; and perspective is the semi-structured inter- language vs dialect issue is indeed par- fulfilment of the State’s “national recon- view, conducted by both authors succes- ticularly relevant in highly multilingual ciliation” objective. sively in May–June 2019 and April–June Chin State, where language politics, un- 2020, and including LCCs, Ministry of derpinned by a multitude of faith-based Until recently, little attention was given Education (MoE) and Ministry of Ethnic written cultures, often militates against to the ongoing shift of language-in-ed- Affairs (MoEA) representatives, Region- the idea of two regional varieties being ucation policy in government schools, al ministers, members of the Chin State considered two dialects of the same lan- attended by a total of nine million chil- parliament, political party leaders, local guage. Illustrating the fractal patterns dren (including five million from prima- teachers, headmasters and educators, often observed by language ideology ry schools). The current policy, of which retired Chin State education experts, as scholars (Irvine and Gal, 2000), this the State governments as well as liter- well as UNICEF representatives. situation leads to what seems to consti- ature and culture committees (LCCs) tute two opposite threats: the prospect are critical actors, is largely based on We will first discuss different aspects of what could be called “ethno-linguistic the 2014–15 education law (Salem-Ger- of the rationale for including ethnic mi- balkanization,” on the one hand, and vais and Raynaud, 2020). This legal text nority languages in the schools of Chin the perspective of giving priority to cer- was until recently, at best, described as State, before moving on, in the next sec- tain languages over others, which would not going far enough, notably for not tion, to a brief historical background of entail multiple and significant tradeoffs prescribing mother tongue-based edu- the issue, ending with the description (in terms of maintaining language diver- cation (MTBE), a model which entails a of the ongoing policy shifts in Myanmar sity, improving access to education, and transition of the medium of instruction in general and Chin State in particular. promoting “national reconciliation”) on from the local “ethnic” language to- In the third section, we will describe the other. wards the national language throughout what seems to be two of the main chal- primary education, and is used by some lenges in the process of including Chin Introduction of the Ethnic Basic Education Providers languages in formal education, namely: With 135 officially recognized ethnic (EBEPs—and most emblematically the schools catering to children from mul- groups and an estimated 117 living lan- Mon National Education Committee). tiple ethnolinguistic backgrounds (a guages,2 Myanmar is a country of com- situation which is relatively common in plex ethnolinguistic diversity. Managing These language-in-education policy con- urban areas) and the difficulties often this diversity and the issue of ethnic versations are certainly relevant to Chin attached to the process of determin- minorities’ political representation has State, a region of Myanmar where the ing what constitutes a language, to be constituted a central challenge in the sheer ethno-linguistic diversity, even by taught in schools, or rather a dialect, process of building a nation-state, with Myanmar standards, creates acute chal- with a less formal status. Finally, we will critical implications in a chaotic con- lenges. Historically, the elusive prospect provide a few case-studies outlines, and temporary political history marked by of a common language has been a cen- briefly discuss the implications of priori- decades of multiple conflicts and suc- tral aspiration in the mobilization, most tizing a small number of Chin languages cessive military dictatorships. notably by cultural elites and various in formal education. political actors, of a common “Chin” Among these issues, the language-in-ed- identity, a term that finds its origins, ac- 1. Why include ethnic minority languages ucation policy, and more specifically the cording to Bradley (2019) in a “Burmese in the schools of Chin State? place attributed (or not) to ethnic mi- collective exonym for a cluster of Tibe- While the 20th century has largely nority languages in formal education, to-Burman speaking groups.”3 Mean- been characterized by the building of has constituted an enduring concern. while, the much-disputable (and dis- nation-states around single standard- The absence (or scarcity) of ethnic mi- puted) official nomenclature recognizes ized national languages, the 1990s nority languages in formal education not fewer than 53 Chin groups, and none and 2000s, parallel to an increasing has indeed regularly been pointed out of the alternative ethno-linguistic classi- consciousness of the eroding world by actors from multiple ethnic minori- fications appears consensual. biodiversity, have witnessed a growing ties as tangible evidence of a “Burmani- awareness of the diminishing cultural sation” process, by contrast to the feder- In this paper, through a lens that has and linguistic diversity (Grinevald and al grounds the country was supposedly been used to discuss language-in-edu- Costa, 2010). During these two de- built on. To this day, choices in terms cation policy throughout Myanmar (Sa- cades, most countries, including Myan- of language-in-education policy contin- lem-Gervais and Raynaud, 2020), we mar, have ratified international declara- ue to have deep implications in several thus aim at bringing the focus on Chin tions initiated by the United Nations or critical dimensions of the country’s so- State (as well as neighboring regions INGOs, aiming at protecting minorities’ 122 30 OCTOBER 2020 • VOL 1 ISSUE 1 Parami Journal of Education • ISSN 2709-2895 Parami Journal of Education • ISSN 2709-2895