Mystery

The world is a mystery and more mysterious fellow humans

One comes and another goes like the fireball of cannons

Where did they come from and where shall they go

Whether the time comes faster or slow,

But the reality is that, one day everybody has to go!!!

Look, right in front of you, what did you see?

I just saw a beautiful shape of cloud and a herd of birds at flee

Gazed for a while and closed my eyes, the visibility went limitless

The universe inside me is unbound by time and space

Opened the lids of my eyes, no bird and the sky was hollow

Everything has a ‘come’ and must have a ‘go’, faster or slow!!!

Think for a while, generations have gone, and generations to come

You must have a long list of genealogy, but not sure who is yet to come

Your subjectivity is created out of your genealogy and history

But, a great wonder is, why human subjectivity is still a mystery!!!

Seven billion peoples, and thoughts and feelings of same amount

Great hierarchy in lifestyles and problems of various types, beyond count

In some part of the world, great problem of overeating and obesity

But somewhere, even greater is the neglect of famine and poverty

This is the rule of ‘global capitalism’, a great ideological mystery!!! 

Limitless wealth and limitless power can’t buy your immortality

Whether you are a tycoon or a dweller of slum, lifecycle follows same modality

Amidst burgeoning capitalism, many people are shouting for a ‘neutrality’

Is tycoon’s achievement a result of his hard-work or corporate frugality

Lost between capitalism and socialism, a scholastic mystery!!!

Ideological Colonialism: Ideological Apparatuses, Subjectification and Cultural Hegemony

Friend: “If Nepal had been a colony of Britain, Nepal would have progressed like India” [facebook status of one of my friends]

Me:      “If there had been an option to dislike I would have disliked your status” [my comment on his status]

Friend: “People say that but I would be happy if anyone convinces me” [his response on my comment]

These were the lines I copied from a conversation between my friend and me on a facebook status. The conversation, though very short, has again struck my mind. Even though the statement of my friend is hypothetical it makes more sense when we compared the economic status of India and Nepal. Needless to mention India was under British rule from 1757 to 1947 but Nepal was [is] never ruled by any foreign forces officially. Some people in Nepalese academic diaspora argue that the prosperity [in terms of economic growth] India has gained since last 30 years is because of the infrastructure developed by the British. However, in the case of Nepal, it has gone worst. Nepal and India share a lot in terms of culture, tradition and religion. Rituals are performed in the same manner in both of the countries, especially Hindu rituals. People look similar, behave in a similar manner, watch similar movies, and listen to similar music, and so on. But a question remains, why India is taking unprecedented economic momentum while Nepal has remained too sluggish? Answer of this question may be many and too long, but I would like to explore the only hypothesis that my friend made and I guess some Nepalese share the same feelings. It is open secret from the fact 'why his status written last year still striking my mind' is that sometimes this Nepali diaspora also includes me and I happen to think: 'had Nepal been ruled by British it would have been richer like India today'.

The time I am trying to write on this, my mind is appealing me to analyse the assumption behind this statement in a deeper level. There are at least two pre-assumptions behind the statement above: firstly it assumes that India is a rich country today, and secondly Nepal is poor and has to be like India to be rich. Moreover in the shadow of these two pre-assumptions there is a third assumption hidden but powerful that is ‘becoming rich is gaining economic growth no matter what happens to the common people’. All these three assumptions lead me to think about the statement a bit critically, which engenders another question, a bit more critical and a bit more philosophical one: is the statement as such the product of the ‘colonisation of mind?’ I mean even though Nepal was not colonised officially the thought and perception of the people are colonised and under this colonial mindset the colonised people would think that what colonisers did was the right and the only best thing to do. During the British rule in India Nepalese were also colonised ideologically, moreover, colonialism was spreading in such a speed that the whole world was colonised by European colonisers. They colonised not only lands and forests, languages and cultures but also the very ontology of the people around the world. As a product of such and such colonial practices my friend any many others in Nepal think that what British did in India had a very positive consequences in the present day India. I will discuss a little more lately but now here I would like to explore more on ‘ideological colonialism’ or the ‘colonialism of mind’ in the light of three concepts: Ideological State Apparatus, Subjectification and Cultural Hegemony, each of them introduced by three philosophers Althusser, Foucault and Gramsci.

Louis Althusser and Ideological State Apparatuses

Luis Althusser, a French Marxist philosopher, claims that ruling class or the government of a nation state strengthens the environment for safe ruling through ideology. As a Marxist his argument echoes the division of society into the rulers and the ruled and how the former exploits the latter for its benefit. Marx’s gave an extensive theory of ‘state apparatus’ (which Althusser claims as repressive state apparatuses) in which state or the ruling class controls over the ordinary citizens or the proletariat through government, administration, army, police, the courts and prison known as state apparatuses.  Marx’s argument, according to Althusser, is limited to how oppressors oppress the oppressed through repressive mechanisms with the control of army, police and moreover with the control over resources and capital. Marx thesis lacks the explanation of ideological state apparatuses which Althusser thinks more powerful than anything else. The ideological state apparatuses (ISA) includes religious institutions such as church; the educational institutions such as schools; the family ISA; the legal ISA such as court; the political ISA such as political parties; the trade union ISA; the Communication ISA such as media; and the cultural ISA such as arts and sports. Among these ISAs, Althusser claims that, the education state apparatuses, especially the schools are most powerful ones. He argues:

“It takes children from every class at infant-school age, and then for years, the years in which the child is most ‘vulnerable’, squeezed between the Family State Apparatus and the Educational State Apparatus, it drums into them, whether it uses new or old methods, a certain amount of ‘know-how’ wrapped in the ruling ideology or simply the ruling ideology in its pure state. Somewhere around the age of sixteen, a huge mass of children are ejected ‘into production’: these are the workers or small peasants” (Althusser,1970)

Now the question here is – was the assumption we make that colonisers did something good to their colonies that is why India has made some progresses than Nepal? Perhaps analysis of other newly independent nations’ past and present would yield more convincing results on the colonial legacy and the present status of the formerly colonised nations. Here I am controlling myself to the analysis of the two nations India and Nepal only so that I can make some sense of my issue: Ideological Colonialism.

If we agree with Althusser’s argument then we can deduct something interesting. Let me elaborate on this. The education system of Nepal overlaps with the education system of India. One of the professors, while I was studying Masters of Philosophy in Kathmandu University, had argued that educational reforms in Nepal were a ditto copy of Indian education system. As Indian education system – I mean the policy and practices of school education – was reproduced with the direct intervention of British education system, the educational reform was the re-reproduction of British ideology and the ideology that is of ruling class to continue their rules. He had argued that the slogan of Panchayat system – one nation (i.e. the greater Nepal) and one language (i.e. Nepali) – was borrowed from the British ideology that wanted to kill diversity by the process of homogenisation. Why students started to like Nepali in language not only from the children speaking it as a mother tongue but all whose parents spoke different ethnic language in ‘un-unified’ Nepal? The answer, if we believe in Althusser, is simple. The ideological state apparatus, especially the educational state apparatus shaped the very ontology and epistemology of young minds.

I am not going to re-theorise or reproduce but would like to make a proposal on the thesis of Althusser in the context of colonisation. If we have to see ideological state apparatuses and colonial poison to indoctrinate the young minds, I would propose for a slight change in the terminology: from Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) to the Ideological Colonial Apparatuses (ICA). A justification for this nomenclatural shift, I argue, is that when colonialism spread at the global level, there was almost no intervention from the state, at least in the case of some Least Developed Countries including Nepal, where still the governments and their policy and practice are influenced by powerful nations and supranational organisations. My argument here is that the government became only the medium to transfer colonial ideologies to Nepalese people. In fact, the state had no ideology, if they had any, had lost somewhere because of their struggle to continue their regime with the support of colonial rulers both at the time of Ranas and Panchayat and the present regime (how present Nepal has been ideological colony is I think an important issue which I will write sometime later).

Taking Althusser’s ISA and my proposal as Ideological Colonial Apparatuses (ICA) into account, let’s go back to the facebook status of my friend. Now the problem seems a little more palpable at least for me. Now I can make a plausible guess that the assumption behind colonial legacy in the positive sense and taking today’s India as a rich country is a fine product of colonisation of mind or ideological colonisation. First, colonisers never intended to make India a rich country, what they wanted was to make it a colony through subjugation and Subjectification (will be discussed in the next section), what they wanted was to continue to outsource raw materials leaving Indian peasants desperate into hunger and famine. If anybody argues British colonisation in India as a good practice that would nothing more than a product of colonised mind set.

Second, it is only a fallacy that today’s India is a rich country. After some countries of Africa (the former European colonies), India holds a largest number of poor people in the world. Yes, India has gained unprecedented economic growth, but it doesn't necessarily mean that India has grown as a rich country. The word 'rich' gives much wider connotation. My appeal is not to limit the meaning of some of the words rich and development into a cunning strategy of modernisation – the economic growth. Perhaps, it is seen on the television screen  that some of the Indian people fashioned like the people of the Western countries, talk in English like Westerners and produced commodities that hold the tag ‘Made in India’. Almost all commodities produced with 'Made in India' tag are the product of multinational corporations which we believe that they were really Indian production  In the neoliberal framework the shareholders of multinational corporations, not necessarily of India origin, are making more money out of the money accumulated through the means that hampered normal peoples' prosperity either directly or indirectly. Not understanding all these activities we are making a false assumption that India is rich and developed country. And now I conclude this section that the assumptions of these types are the product of ideological colonialism which we should understand by understanding the very nature of Subjectification.

Michel Foucault and Subjectification

When Foucault comes in my mind I make an image of lexemes such as governance, or governmetality, power or power relations, subjugation and so on. Foucault (1926-1984) was one of the influential theorists whose writings emerged as a powerful tool for understanding the social phenomenon, especially through the introduction of some rather abstract concept like power or governmetality. He wrote a lot and spoke a lot. One of his concepts is ‘Subjectification’ which I am going to explore with reference to ‘ideological colonialism’.

The word Subjectification overlaps somehow with the concept of interpellation that was introduced by Althusser. From Althusser's writing, interpellation can be understood as the process by which ideological state apparatuses make people accept the domination from state as rational activities for their benefit. For example, shaping the minds of children according to the interest and objective of the state or the ruling class is interpellation process. In the similar way the concepts of Subjectification as the process of making people perceive what they are as they are. Under the influence of state ideologies ordinary people create their own self by themselves but they don’t know that the very self they construct is the product of dominant ideology.

According to Foucault, “there are two meanings of the word subject: subject to someone else by control and dependence; and subject tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge” (Foucault, 1982, p. 781). The word Subjectification comes from the second meaning of the word subject. Perhaps, the distinction between these two meaning of the subject makes Subjectification different from interpellation. Influenced by Marx, Althusser claimed that control and dependence are secured by ideological state apparatuses but he didn't tell that such control and dependence are created by the proletariat themselves who are unaware of bourgeoisie ideologies that frame their thought subconsciously through ideological state apparatuses. The new dimension added by Foucault – in earlier version of Marxist State Apparatus and Althusser’s contribution (by differentiating ideological state apparatuses and repressive state apparatuses) – is that oppressed people create their self but do not understand that the very self is an outcome of subjugation from the ruling ideology and submit themselves for the benefit of dominant class and their ideology. 

Going back to my issue – whether the assumption we have been making was an outcome of ideological colonialism – I would like to discuss whether such assumption was an outcome of Subjectification. It leads to a new question: do some of the people, who praise colonialism as a good intervention for the development of, let’s say India in a literal sense, colonised nations, think their assumptions as right ones? The theory of Subjectification allows us to say “yes they do” because the people of colonised nations are unable to break the mental boundary created by colonial ideologies. They are unable to explain the reality as the fishes are unable to define the earth. They construct their epistemology on the ontology created by colonial ideologies. Foucault claims, now the agenda is how to break this boundary for liberating us from such Subjectification so as to create a new subjectivity – the process of de-Subjectification – that goes beyond ideological colonialism and allows all the fishes to define how the mountains and hills look like.

Antonio Gramsci and Cultural Hegemony

Perhaps there are very few people today who have not heard the name of Benito Mussolini – a dictator and the protagonist of notorious political theory - fascism. He ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943. In one of the prisons under his control was a very radical intellectual young man writing most of the times whose writings are now famous in the name of ‘the prison notebooks’. This highly original thinker was Antonio Gramsci. From his thesis a new form of adult education emerged in the name of radical adult education that appeal for the revolutionary role of educators, politicians, and civil society members of modern society. From his immense concepts and ideas, I would like to draw one of the prominent concepts – cultural hegemony – to analyse ‘ideological colonialism’.

In simple dictionary terms, the word hegemony is defined as ‘the dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others’. But for Gramsci there is something more. He claims that hegemony comprises of “spontaneous consent given by a great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is historically caused by prestige which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production” (Coben, 1995).

A question comes in my mind from the above definition of hegemony – why great masses of people give consent to dominant group to rule over the former? Is it because of the interpellation as propounded by Althusser or Subjectification propounded by Foucault? The concept overlaps to a great extent however there is something more than what Althusser and Foucault have to say on this regard. The dominant group not only indoctrinate masses towards their ideology, they enjoy certain privilege historically established. Under the guise of this privilege or the prestige the dominant group make the masses work for them and live for them. As they control the means of production, the masses are compelled to give consent to rule over them. For maintaining this hegemony the dominant group exercises active ethical functions through state as the nation state is controlled by the dominant class. The oppressive rules become common sense for the common people who do not examine critically whether those were oppressive rules imposed on them for maintaining hegemony. Gramsci claims that “common sense is the seedbed of the dominant ideology as well as being the battle ground of the new ideology in elaboration” (Coben, 1995). Now there is no doubt for not-consenting the common sense.

Formation of more oppressive rules and acceptance of such rules as common sense becomes a kind of culture (I am using this notion of cultural hegemony in a very literal sense). Acculturated in such culture general masses are unable to differentiate what is right and what is wrong. The people indoctrinated in such system develop a kind of intellectual that accepts the dominant ideology as truths. Such truths are embedded in the mindset of working class people through traditional institutions such as administration, school, police and army.

Having said these from Gramsci, let’s go back to the assumption we have been making – the assumption that colonialism had something positive outcome for the nations who are on the process of establishing sovereignty and gaining economic growth. Now my agenda in question: does ideological colonialism is an outcome of cultural hegemony? Looking through the Gramscian lens, the answer would be “yes”. Because of cultural hegemony we take some of the colonial oppressive rules as common sense. For example British colonisers of India created two classes among the colonised people. The first group of people were local feudal who had the control over resources and because of their inherited cultural capital could put control over peasants and other working class people. Gradually the new generation of colonial victims started to accept feudal lords as high caste/class people and gave consent to rule over them. Through feudal lords British rulers secured cultural hegemony. As a closed neighbour and a kind of colony of decolonised India, Nepalese also take some of the oppressive rules as common sense. The particular facebook status of my friend may be or may not be an example of the product of cultural hegemony, whether he has a different thought now, or whether my analysis of this type gives new thoughts to those who have similar kind of assumption is not a prime concern. Definitely there are examples in Nepalese society where Western ideologies still functioning as common sense. My synthesis here is how ideological colonialism is operational in the present day world, especially in the Global South.

Conclusion

The question whether India is gaining economic progress in comparison to Nepal in the recent decades is a very complex question. There could be both internal and external causes behind the relative progression and regression of certain countries. I took this issue to explore on the issue of ‘ideological colonialism’ rather than answering the question itself. I don’t have the answer and I argue that nobody can give an absolute answer. I am contented to some extent through this writing that some small issue makes great difference when we see them from different theoretical lenses. However, I am sure for one thing – ideological colonialism is not a myth and an issue just for the sake of debate. It’s a historical fact and many people in the world today are the victim of this. Nations got independence. Few people have got the opportunity to be presidents, and prime ministers of those independent nations but for general people nothing has changed. They are oppressed even today; just the form of oppression has changed somehow. A thesis that emerges from this writing is: interpellation and Subjectification of rulers and the ruled through cultural hegemony. It brings two concluding remarks. First, the rulers of so called independent nation states – the subjects of the rule – are acting as though they are the ultimate rulers of the independent nations but they never know how their ruling ideology is framed. And secondly, the ruled – the citizens of independent nations – are trying to gain their lost rights and freedom but while doing so they have never attempted to know what their real rights and freedoms are. That is why there are a lot of tensions in the third world country including ‘never colonised!!!’ nation Nepal.

References

1. Althusser, L. (1994). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (B. Brewster, Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm (Original work published 1970)
2. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197
3. Coben, D. (1995). Revisiting Gramsci [Electronic version]. Studies in the Education of Adults,27(1), 36-51

Nepal's Participation in Rio+20

Today is not the time when the earth was created about 14 billion years ago, this is not the time when plants and animals started to flourish, this is also not the time when human hoards fought to control their territories. Those were the moments either the nature itself continued to make the earth favourable for survival or the species were not conscious enough to observe what is going on in their mother earth. Today is the time humans should correct their mistakes otherwise the earth is going to be inhabitable putting every earthling at risk. Humans committed several mistakes in the name of getting civilised, industrialized, and more competitive. Who gained what and who lost what has been a serious political issue. But attempts are being made to correct those mistakes.

Perhaps the first attempt was made at global level through the initiative of United Nations in 1972 at Stockholm, in Sweden to protect human environment, where many developed, developing and least developed countries including small Himalayan country Nepal made commitments to reduce the consumption of resources that deteriorates the earth environment. Mistakes were realised and with very optimistic goals heads of different nations signed agreements. After 20 years in 1992 at Rio Brazil, UN organised another conference with huge participation of 172 nations. The name of this famous conference is Earth Summit 1992. 'The UN sought to help Governments rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet' (Ref). In this conference, perhaps for the first time the mistakes were made more clear. The industrialized nations were pointed out and asked for bearing the brunt of environmental destruction. With a great misfortune, by that time scientists have found that the effect of environmental destruction, especially the climate change would be more for developing and least developed nations rather than the industrialized ones. For example, some of the island countries are being affected because of the rising sea level and mountainous countries like Nepal are being affected because of the decreasing amount of snow on the Himalayas. The countries were divided on the line that who made mistakes and who are affected more. It was also committed that 0.7% of total Gross Domestic Product of the industrial nations to be given to developing and least developed nations as a compensation for affecting their lives and their society without committing the mistakes. But by the time Rio +20 is going to take place in 2012 the commitments have not been fulfilled.

What is Rio +20

Rio 20 is a UN conference on sustainable development. It can also be defined as a historical opportunity to define pathways to safer, more equitable, cleaner, greener and more prosperous world for all. Once again 'world leaders, along with thousands of participants from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other groups, are meeting to decide how to reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection on an ever more crowded planet to get to the future humans need and want' (Ref). The priority areas are promotion of decent jobs, clean energy and sustainable development to reduce poverty. This summit has a greater significance to developing countries and basically the least developed countries than other industrialized nations. The conference is being organized June 20-22 at Rio after several meeting, consultations and preparations at national, regional and international level.

The Rio +20 conference has double pronged focus: reducing the poverty and tackling with the climate change. How does the measures to reduce poverty correlates with the measures taken for tackling with climate change or the global warming is a genuine issues needing more discussions, commitments and translating those commitments into practice. The number of people living in extreme poverty that is unable to eat full stomach and live in a shelter that protects from wind and rain is increasing. The congregation of those people is burgeoning in the rural villages of the least developed countries. In 48 countries of this type the problem in Africa and South Asia is more pervasive and these are the countries that face global warming more. Those countries that have agriculture as major source of GDP are facing problems because of the changing pattern of weather basically the rain that has started to fall unusually and untimely. Agriculture and domestic products have been so fragile and people have less motivation towards their work from domestic products. Young people are out of the country leaving their elders and youngsters desperately at home. These illustrations show that there is a close link between burgeoning poverty and global warming. As the global warming increases so happens to the poverty. Now global warming is a topic of discussion of developed nations but the problem of least developed countries. Had the former realised it as a problem perhaps their commitments would have been materialized. The US, China, Germany and other industrialized and neo-industrialised countries have just discussed and giving cautions to the developing nations but not doing anything significant, at least they have not truly realised their mistakes.

Nepal's participation

Nepal is a small Himalayan country in South Asian. A large portion of Nepal's (147,181 sq km) area have been covered by the snow. The snow provides not only natural beauty but also a source of living by providing cool environment and source of water who live below the mountains. Nepal has been making an active participation to world conferences such as the conferences organized by the UN. It has been a signatory of many international agreements and and commitments. As the issues of Rio +20 - poverty, global warming, and sustainable development - are intractably related to the issues of Nepal, it's genuine participation is a key to the success of this UN Conference.

1992 Earth Summit had a significant impact in Nepal. One of the successful projects of Nepal is Community Forestry. Forest resources have been an integral means of survival in Nepal. 77.7% of fuel consumption in Nepal comes from firewood that is from the forest. Similarly it has great value to promote agriculture and for growing domestic animals. Now what to do and expect in this conference.

Nepal is an active member of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). It is going to be the head of LDC in 2013 where all the issues I discussed above becomes the issues of not only Nepal but also the issues of all LDCs where Nepal is going to give a leadership. Does Nepal have that capacity to lead those countries? Like other LDCs Nepal also depends on foreign direct investments. A large amount of its fiscal budgets is covered by the donations and loans from indusrialised nations and the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The world is clearly divided into two classes: the have's and the havenot's. Nepal's future will be in trouble if international community stop providing financial support. But the problem is Nepal as a leader of LDC should be able to speak against the tyranny the developed nations are doing so far, especially for the destruction of the global environment - the global warming. The havenot's will never have their share preserved until and unless they can fight against the tyrants. Other LDCs who are participating in the Rio +20 conference are certainly expecting something bold from their prospective leader.

By the time prime minister Baburam Bhattarai of Nepal heading towards the Rio conference a lot of things going on in Nepal. Political leaders are hated at the worst level for the first time because of their inability to give constitution. Their leadership have been a matter of defamation and hatred. Deteriorated from the civil war, and indulging into uncertainty about the future course, Nepal is now a failed state reeling into anarchy. Anything may happen any time in Nepal and there is nobody to take the responsibility for that. Yet the leaders have not realised their mistakes, rather complaining each other. The dramatic ceasefire from the revolting Maoist and the advancement made after people’s revolution has been a complete failure.

Moreover, the largest political party has split into two one leading by a warmonger. The splited faction still want to revolt but doesn't know against who. There is no objective definition of who are their real enemies if there are any. Dr. Bhattarai have been a puppet of Prachanda. It sounds for me that these leaders including the top leaders of other major political parties do not know what is the right track. They seem to be contended as though no development is needed further so they need to compete for the posts. No leaders seem to be cooperating and giving constructive suggestions. Just complaining, blaming and backbiting...just to prove their austerity which they have already lost and is irrecoverable.

I wonder, what the delegates of Nepal are thinking to speak in such conference. What the head of the delegation would speak with the world and what commitment would they make. The world is different and problems are many. Nepal has many problems and it will not come out of the vicious cycle of poverty unless the internal problems are solved first. Why the leaders of Nepal do not understand the facts? Everything is clear...making government, changing it, having the position of minister is not a major thing. Perhaps there are no leaders who have not been in position since last 20 years. Still they are blaming other and telling that they can do if they get the position. It is the world and the simplicity you can prove that counts not the what position you held and you would like to hold. Now is the war against poverty not against what you have been blaming for. Nepal was not looted by anybody and will not be looted in the future. We will be languishing in such limbo until and unless we can realise this fact and help each other to push this country up. Hope the Nepali delegates of Rio +20 conferences have an opportunity to unlock their politically jaded mind and think about the problems widely and find right solutions of the right problems.

Composed at
EDST Lab
University of British Columbia
BC, Canada

Least Developed Countries

Recent (2011) data from World Bank reveal that among 6.7 billion people living in the world, 5.5 billion (82%) live in developing countries. It means that only about 20% of the people live in developed countries. Another figure shows that about 80% of the world resources are held by developed countries. Comparing the use of resources and the number of people, the result is surprising. 80% resources for 20% people and 20% resources for 80% people.

Those living in developing countries (the 20%) are not homogeneous economically. Actually the gap between  rich and poor is significantly higher than we normally assume. For example, Indian billionaires hold 31% of the national GDP and there are 50-70 billionaires in India. It means that the largest democracy (India) in the world has such scary figure where about 31% of national resources are held by only 53 richest people (June 2012). In other poor economies too the gap between poor people and rich people is increasing. The economy is a significant determiner of ones health, education, and social capital. The figures show that now the problem is not only gap between developed and developing countries but also between rich and poor people. Perhaps, the number of poor people in rich countries is decreasing, we can not be sure that similar changes happening in poor countries. Actually, the so called economic boom in newly developed countries such as India and China doesn't necessarily prove that the condition of its people has improved. A country can become rich leaving millions of people in poverty. Even though this is a very crucial issue, I am not going to discuss further in this posting. The purpose of this post is to highlight some of the facts on the Least Developed Countries.

Looking through the lens of development economics, we can find three types of countries in the world today. They are developed countries, developing countries and the least developed countries or LDCs. Obviously first category is clear as it holds the advanced industrial nations. Normally they are the members of G8 (that includes France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Russia) or the member of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or OECD (that includes 34 developed countries of the world). The list of the second types of countries is not so clear. They are also called the countries in economic transition or transition countries. Mostly they are represented by Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, including some oil producing countries. The first four accelerating economies are also called BRIC taking the initials of these four countries.

The third category, which is also my focus here is the Least Developed Countries. They are also called the third world countries but the terms is not used these days because of its derogatory sense and the term "third world" doesn't have exact connotation with the discussion I am going to do here. In 1971 United Nations made a decision to categorise the poorest countries of the world in the category of Leas Developed Countries. Since then LDC has been a popular acronym among development activists and donor agencies. These are the countries categorised in terms of Human Development Index. They are the countries with lowest level of national literacy, fragile and poor economy, poor health facility and basically the number of people living in extreme poverty that is living in 1.25 dollar a day.

There are 48 LDCs in the world today. The majority of LDCs are in Africa. The Least Developed Countries Report 2011 shows that there are 33 in Africa, 14 in Asia and 1 in South America. These 48 countries are:
         

Afghanistan	Madagascar
Angola	Malawi
Bangladesh	Mali
Benin	Mauritania
Bhutan	Mozambique
Burkina Faso	Myanmar
Burundi	Nepal
Cambodia	Niger
Central African Republic	Rwanda
Chad	Samoa
Comoros	Sao Tome and Principe
Congo	Senegal
Djibouti	Sierra Leone
Equatorial Guinea	Solomon Islands
Eritrea	Somalia
Ethiopia	Sudan
Gambia	Timor-Leste
Guinea	Togo
Guinea-Bissau	Tuvalu
Haiti	Uganda
Kiribati	Tanzania
Lao	Vanuatu
Lesotho	Yemen
Liberia	Zambia

Poverty is the major problem in all these countries. Now 36% of the people living in extreme poverty that is less that 1.25 dollar per day (and 78% living in 2 dollar per day) live in the LDCs. The LDCs share 12% of the world population but their contribution to the global Gross Domestic Product remains below 0.9% which is considerably lower than what it was in 1970s. Something to notice here today is that United States alone contribute about 22% of world GDP. Let's analyse the figure once again, 22% by one country and 1% by 48 countries. And this figure is not going to alter. The United Nations for Population Fund predicts that by 2050 the world population will reach 9 billion and 1.67 billion (about 18%) people will be living in LDCs. 

In terms of literacy, the adult literacy of LDCs is only 59.6%. It means that about 60 people in every 100 people can read and write. Because of global movement such as Education for All, Millennium Development Goals and Universal Primary Education the enrolment rate at primary level has reached about 85%, however the enrolment rate of secondary is only 32 percent. It shows that out of 100 only 85 go to primary school and only 32 secondary school age children reach to the secondary level. Looking at the rate of participation at tertiary level, we can claim that there is no progress at all. Only 5.6% people enrol in higher education. There is no data how many of them graduate and how many of them get job after their graduation.


Looking at the trend of Nepal, we can say that now the problem has been shifted to educated unemployed rather than uneducated unemployed. Even those 5.6%, probably the exceptional and brilliant people are not employed, then how can we imagine a better society? Same is the condition for all 48 Least Developed Countries of the World. On top of all problems there is also a burgeoning problem of brain drain. These are the reason why the number of LDCs is increasing and poverty is accelerating in the world. 

Problems are many and questions are even more. What are the solution to all those problems? Can education and qualifications solve these problems? Is investment in education justifiable in those countries? Does human capital formation help to alleviate the extreme poverty those countries enduring since past? How to reduce inequality? Are we educating the citizens of those countries in the right way? What has education done since past about 100 years? Was there not a right type of education or was education inadequate? These are the questions that need to be addressed. This is the time to work together for finding the solution of the problems these countries facing. People may think that the developed and developing countries could provide a panacea as they have been doing as donor agencies. The history of international development assistance shows that no country can achieve sustainable development from donations of rich countries and even from the assistance of World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The individual LDCs should unite and explore the solutions of their common problems.

Defining reality through social constructivism

Reality is a contested issue. What people call a reality seems mere assumption when we try to generalise that in another context. If a reality is not true in all circumstances then we can't claim that as a reality. What was true in the past must be true at present and in future. What is true in Canada must be true in Nepal. Yes some of the assumptions are true such as "we drink water when we are thirsty" but how much thirsty one gets and how much water she needs for saturation is not the same. A question I would like to discuss here is how the 'reality' is defined? The definition of reality is also contested. I would like to be more specific on 'how reality is constructed' rather than defined because I am convinced at least for today is that reality is constructed not predetermined. Reality is fluid, dynamic and contextual. People in a particular social setting construct a reality, probably true for all the members at least for that particular situation.

To illustrate the concept, let me take an issue: 'development'. A serious question here would be 'what is development?'. Having more money, roads, vehicles, schools, hospitals, employment opportunities are the present assumption of development. We have called some western countries as developed ones because they were able to manage those facilities before the some of the Asian and African countries had achieved. Based on this definition of development we made categorization among the countries of the world hence some countries became developed, some became developing and some became least developed ones. To be developed in the same fashion as western countries, the developing countries also constructed roads, developed school systems, set up industries and so on. For doing so developed countries became donors and the others became receivers. The number of least developed countries remained the same because the developed countries remained always ahead in advancing those attributes of development. Are the countries in the global south not getting progress? It is definitely not, as far as I believe now, a lot of progresses have been done. For example people's level of thought has changed, people have different world views to view the world and so forth. Then where the problem is. The answer may not be easy and the answers may be many. But an inference I could easily make is the problem in defining the term development. The attributes given to 'development' was a socially constructed reality and the construction of that reality took place in the western world or the global north. The assumptions of accepting the definition of western reality as universal reality was the major problem. All countries and all societies are different. They have their own features and own ways of progression. One of the solutions could be disregard of western definition of development and accept that reality is socially constructed and value the reality that is constructed at individual social context. Nepal can never be Canada no matter how good the schools are, how good the roads are and how industrial the former wants to be. And we should never assume that Nepal is not developed and Canada is developed. Let's decide what counts good for Nepal and take its progression on its own way.

Reality changes on daily basis. Let me find an example to show how it changes. Before coming to Canada, I used to believe that Canada is a western country. Eurocentric beliefs, westernization, modernisation and other similar terms have some negative connotations in the discussion we used to have when I was in Nepal. I was assuming that those criticisms were not applicable in Canada because it is a western country and it believes on westernization, modernisation and all other ontologies based on western thoughts and beliefs. I was also thinking that I may put myself in a difficult situation because of my critical mind set towards those phenomena. But after I came to Canada and started to debate and discuss among scholars, mostly from western world I started hearing same argument we used to make in Nepal. We used to blame European colonisers for the oppression and hardships many developing countries are facing these days. We used to go against Eurocentric beliefs. My utter surprise now is that almost all of my colleagues are talking the same. Two days ago in an interuniversity research seminar a researcher who was Canadian by citizen and looked like an European by skin blamed colonization and appealed for the decolonization of scholarly research. My question was 'where is the WEST in this earth?' what are western countries, and actually what is westernisation? Now my reality of westernisation and westernism has changed. People in Canada are talking the same thing, they are blaming colonisation and westernisation.

The changing trend of my personal reality - probably it is my radical constructivist standpoint - has engendered another assumption and the assumption is that Canada was a colony and here are people suffering from Europeanisation. The issue of Indigenous or First Nations people is so pervasive. Yes this is the time for revitalisation of those values that were suppressed by the British and French colonisers in the past. Yes it is also the time for decolonisation of scholarly activities because we can't understand the reality following the epistemology developed by the western scholars or the colonisers themselves. But in terms of my definition of westernisation and the the question I raised in the seminar, I am wondering how those assumption would be dealt when I go to Europe and ask among the British scholars. Actually, I would like to ask them, we have assumed that 'you are, if not at least, your ancestors were, Europeans, they were colonisers, and the world was universalise on what you thought was true. You defined the word development and asked the world to be developed on the way you wanted to be but do you think this assumption is true? If you think these assumptions are wrong then tell me again where is the WEST and who are westerners, who are colonisers? See how my reality of westernisation and westernism has changed since I came to Canada. I am anticipating that when I go to Britain and have discussion with the British scholar my assumption of westernisation would change.

I may change this post in the future, but for now I would like to conclude that reality is socially and contextually constructed issue, it goes on changing as we find ourselves in changed context and circumstances.

'Concept Mapping' as a mixed method research

Concept mapping is a mixed method research method that allows the quantitative analysis of qualitative data. This method is popular in program evaluation, however, it has been used in the field of social sciences as it allows to explore an area of research in a more organised way. According to Trochim (1989), there are five steps that a researcher follows while following concept mapping as a method for social science research. First, a specific questions is posed to a number of participants and responses are collected. Second, responses are edited for clarity and redundant responses are removed. Third, responses are returned to participants and are asked to group them together into concepts. Fourth, the groupings made by participants are analysed using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis procedures. Finally, the groupings made by the participants are combined and most significant clusters are selected for the final concept map. The decisions are made on the basis of statistical and conceptual fit.
It seems like a mixed method research not because it follows some traditional statistical tools such as t test and z test. But because of its inherent quality of being positivist rather than following the principle of construction of new knowledge subjectively. As the researcher counts the concepts repeated and and grouped it looks like a quantitative one. It is a mixed method because it is quantitative in process but qualitative in content. (I will change this post when i will have more information on concept mapping as a research method)

Some of my articles

Click here for more
1.  Completing a Graduate Degree: A Case of a Female Student
Abstract: This paper was written as an assignment for one of my courses while pursuing a graduate degree in the Department of Education Studies at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada. I have made an attempt to explore perceptions and experiences of a female graduate student on four different aspects of her family and academic life. The four aspects that emerged as the themes while analysing interview transcript are: personal and family life; gender differences; funding and scholarship; and the role of supervisor. The paper also presents how the interview was conducted, how the data were generated and how analysis was done. At the end of the paper I have presented my reflections. This short and single-participant semi-structured interview research concludes with three basic findings as major impeding factors for a successful completion of a graduate programme, especially by a female student. The three findings are: female graduate students still face many challenges--as systemic barriers--that are more severe than their male counterparts face; financial problem is still a strong impeding factor that associate with all other major and minor barriers for the completion of a graduate degree; and finally, the relationship between a graduate student and her/his supervisor and the latter's expertise in the area of student's research interest is one of the significant factors for the successful completion of a graduate programme. Read the article

2. Lifelong Learning in Nepal: Contexts and Prospects
Abstract: Learning is a lifelong process. Many countries in the world, basically the European and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, have adopted it as an important vehicle for human development. They have also made it a policy agenda for meeting the human capital need for twenty first century for economic prosperity. However, the concept of lifelong learning is still new in many developing countries including Nepal. With UNESCO's efforts some policy documents have made some provisions to enhance non-formal education in Nepal; however, no specific provision has been made so far to enhance informal learning despite the fact that that has been proved as one of the vital constituents of lifelong learning. This article discusses some of the fundamental concepts attached with lifelong learning and also sheds some lights on the prospects of lifelong learning in developing countries, with particular focus on the Nepalese contexts. Read the article
3.  Promoting Lifelong Learning in Multilingual Context: A Case from Nepal
Abstract: Nepal is a multilingual country with low adult literacy rate (about 57% in 2008). Through different policy documents and motivation from some of the transnational organizations such as UNESCO, Nepal is on the process of adopting lifelong learning perspective as a major educational policy. In this context the article raises two issues: how to preserve and promote linguistic diversity and how to provide lifelong learning opportunities in such multilingual context. For addressing these issues, the article argues that multilingual lifelong learning policy--in all three modes of learning: formal, non-formal and informal--could be a suitable educational policy for Nepal. Read the article
4. Recognition, Accreditation and Validation of Non-Formal and Informal Learning: Prospects for Lifelong Learning in Nepal 
Abstract: This study was an exploration on the various issues related to recognition, accreditation and validation of non-formal and informal learning to open up avenues for lifelong learning and continuing education in Nepal. The perceptions, experiences, and opinions of Nepalese Development Activists, Educational Administrators, Policy Actors and University Professors became the major part of this research. Some of the reviews of the good practices in the field of validation of non-formal and informal learning and development of National Qualifications Framework at international level; and the progresses Nepal has made so far in this field were also equally incorporated in the study. It was a two-phased Sequential Mixed Method study in which Survey and Phenomenology representing positivist and constructivist paradigms were used sequentially to draw the findings. The quantitative part of the research dealt with the three themes of the research. The first theme was "providing options for learners to learn through formal, non-formal and informal modes of learning equally"; the second theme was "bringing parity among the three modes of learning" and the third theme was "developing a National Qualifications Framework" to recognize, accredit, and validate non-formal and informal learning to enhance lifelong learning in Nepal. During the analysis of qualitative part of the research eight different themes generated. They were making people free to acquire knowledge; making the three forms of learning equal; recognition, accreditation, and certification of non-formal and informal learning; recognition, accreditation and certification of indigenous knowledge; assessing non-formal and informal learning; adaptability and employability of non-formal and informal learners; developing a National Qualifications Framework; and enhancing lifelong learning. These themes either directly or indirectly are related to validation of non-formal and informal learning to create an environment conducive for lifelong learning in Nepal. From the analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data it was found that the Educational Stakeholders were positive and enthusiastic towards enhancing lifelong learning by recognizing, accrediting and validating non-formal and informal learning in Nepal. They opined almost in a similar spirit that the three forms of learning should get equal focus to make one's learning a lifelong endeavor. They had a consensus on developing a mechanism to assess non-formal and informal learning outcomes including indigenous knowledge and skills. They also claimed that non-formal and informal learners are equally employable and adaptable as formal degree holders if the formers were provided with an environment conducive for fostering their knowledge, skills and competencies. Above all, from the triangulation of qualitative results with quantitative data and review of literatures it was found that if a mechanism for recognizing, accrediting and validating non-formal and informal learning is developed on the basis of a National Qualifications Framework, then the goal of enhancing lifelong learning could be achieved. Read all

5. Looking Mother Tongue Instruction through Different Perspectives

Abstract: Mother Tongue Instruction has been a debatable issue since long. There may be two options in the medium of instruction: either to teach especially primary and preprimary schoolchildren in their own mother tongue or continue using second or foreign language as the medium of instruction. Both of the approaches bear some pros and cons. This article tries to explore the perplexing debate in brief by analyzing the concept through different perspectives namely psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, political, cultural, gender, and pedagogical. It also gives a glimpse of the progresses made in Nepal to cater mother tongue instruction. Read the article

6. Evaluation of ELT Program of Kathmandu University 

Abstract: Kathmandu University is one of the leading universities in Nepal. There are different faculties and programs under it. One of schools, namely, School of Education is committed to produce quality academic workforce as per the demanding need of the nation in the field of teaching and learning. It runs English Language Teaching (ELT) Program as an innovative and didactic program with its separate department and faculty members. This report presents a comprehensive summary of the Evaluation of the ELT program. The evaluation was done with particular reference to 2007 February batch according to CIPP (Context, Input, Process, and Product) Evaluation Model. The study concludes that the ELT program has partially achieved its objectives but it is likely that it would take some steps quickly if the implementation phase is made more contemporaneous. Read the article

Allegory of Cave

Composition of research report

Normally, a research report consists of 12 parts: title, acknowledgement, table of contents, abstract, introduction, literature review, research methods, results, discussion, conclusion, appendices and references. All of them are familiar to me but from today’s reading I have found simple but crucial information – we shouldn’t include all the results we get. To make our research more succinct and to the point we should preset and discuss only those findings that relate to our research question(s).

Allegory of parable of cave

Lee Gunderson, my professor teaching research methodology in education, started his lesson with ‘parable of cave’ of Plato. I had heard but didn’t know what it exactly signifies. It was taken from the 7^th volume of Plato’s ‘The Republic’. It talks about the reality and how it is perceived by people. The reality is illusive and we can never know it because we have being changed with some constraints. Perhaps this video will make the things clear

Reality and knowledge

The professor tries to direct the class to the understanding of metaphysics, epistemology and logical positivism. Metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of all reality and epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. I couldn’t say right now the difference between the knowledge and the reality, however, just a plausible guess of my mind. Reality is a relative concept. What is real today may not be so tomorrow and it depends on the perspectives we use to see the things. Something that we take for granted as real, may be wrong for someone who has a different or better perspective to see it. Like in the allegory of cave the prisoner have taken for granted that the world is the shadow moving on the wall in front of them but for the one who went outside he found another reality and that was something more convincing.

The word knowledge, in my understanding has related but a bit different semantics. It is something that we know or understand. Even though the reality is the same, the understanding we make over it may differ from person to person. So knowledge is related to epistemology and reality is with metaphysics, nonetheless both of them are the branches of philosophy.

Logical positivism

Auguste Comte was the first philosopher to propound the concept of positivism. He claimed that theory must be based on observed facts. Several branches of research developed after the induction of positivism or logical positivism. The studies on plants and animals started to be called naturalistic research. Similarly lepidopterists (for the people involved in Insect that in the adult state has four wings more or less covered with tiny scales), botanists, and biologists emerged as researchers. Some of them studied the physical world and their field were geography or astronomy. The areas of research involved in the study of human beings were known as ethnography, anthropology, and epidemiology.  

Anthropological researches sometimes have been the subject of ethical discussion. For example the study in Ishi – the only found living man from Yahi tribe. The following video will give more information on Ishi and his life after he was found. 

Case studies, patient interviews, experiment and quasi-experiment, survey, conceptual analysis (the analysis of the concepts found in literature), action research, historical research (though some people say it is not a research as it lack facts...the facts of histories are just the interpretations of historians), feminist research are some of the examples of research methods/designs.

The best statistics teachers: Prof. Gunderson

I found the way Prof. Gunderson teaches is so fascinating, to the point and simply the best. He has been the first teacher to provide the basic concept of statistics to me. I have been trying to learn some of the fundamental concepts of research statistics, basically after starting to do my MPhil thesis from Kathmandu University. I have read few books and few pages on the web and have also used SPSS package as a tool for analysing the quantitative data of my research. I still don’t have confidence on the statistical operations that I carried out two years ago.

As a matter of fact, Gunderson became the first guru today to make me clear the basic concept of ‘statistical significance’. He made me a reporter of Vancouver Sun and asked to write a report on a woman who can guess rightly whether tea or milk was put on the tea. I went to the women and asked her to make her guess on 1^st cup – she got right. The chance was ½ , again I asked to go for another cup and she made it right the chance or probability became ¼ that means there is 25% chance that she made it correct by accident. He asked, “Kapil, now are you going to write the report?” I said “no” because I couldn’t take that risk. It could be only chance. Let me give a next trial – the third one. Wow! With my utter surprise the women guessed that rightly. I went on asking her to make guesses and she got all right and I came to a certain point that I had less than 5% chance that her right guess was just an accident. As a social science researcher I decided to take that risk. Now I know that that as the statistical significance at 5%level which is acceptable. In another words I am 95% sure that the guessing expertise of the woman was 95% sure and decided to report to the Vancouver Sun. In the field of medical science the significance level is generally taken at 1% level because the risk factor may bring devastating consequence if that comes to be true. This applies to the normal distribution data.

He also gave the basic concept behind mean and variance. Mean is average value and the number that we get by subtracting the mean from the data is residual error whose summation has to come to zero. In statistics minus (-) numbers are often not kept so to eliminate them the residual errors are squared and the summation of squared numbers when divided by the number of items (N) taken into consideration gives the Variance or standard deviation. Hat off Prof. Gunderson, you made the things clear for me.