I attended a grand mela of English teachers of 32 countries organised by Nepal English Language Teachers' Association (NELTA) in Kathmandu under the rubric 'A regional conference and symposium' from November 20-23, 2019. NELTA announced the participation of TESOL (formerly Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) and its stalwarts from Britain, America, and Nepal in this symposium and conference. TESOL, by promoting the concept of teaching English to those who do not consider the language to be their native tongue, has triggered discussions about the association of English teaching with globalisation. In other words, the target of all organisations and methodologies associated with English language teaching so far are the non-native users. The predicative 'teaching', not 'learning', is at the core of the discussion of the English teaching methodology in the non-native sphere that is widening fast today.

​NELTA's explicit choice of an ‘ecological approach to English language teaching: prospects and challenges' as its principal theme speaks volumes. President of NELTA Motikala Subba Dewan firmly put the concept of ecology in an atmosphere that is not affected by polarisation. The next thing, she rightly stressed, was that only by promoting collaboration and highlighting the need and spirit of the involvement of the local, could we create or change the ecology of English teaching. She stressed it could be achieved by not confining teaching to the classroom. Other erstwhile Nepali stalwarts of NELTA and other participants took up similar approaches in their talks.

I chose to speak on the imbrication of English language teaching and ecology for my keynote discourse because I believe language ecology is not a neutral concept; it addresses various socio-cultural and even political issues. We should openly accept and incorporate the changes that have occurred in the dialects of English in different regions. The very dynamics of the language has allowed and encouraged such mixing. Terms such as Hinglish, Nepenglish, Singlish, Japlish, Chinglish, Finglish have come into existence to explain these varieties. As English is used extensively today, it is critical to break the rigid canon and make the teaching human—by making learners aware of the world, the nature around them, and familiarising them with the simple convictions of life. In such a context, English language teaching can gain tremendously by making the curricula flexible and time savvy.

Ecology has become an important subject, especially at a time when good people around the world are raising the alarm about the growing environmental disaster. Given that, it is but natural for English teachers to take ecological approaches to teaching. As a person who has spent half a century in teaching English as a language and subject, I don't feel uncomfortable with the new challenges. Instead, I feel energised to see that the real sense has prevailed now. Addressing the huge crowd of about 2,000 English teachers, a large section of whom have been my students at different times, I felt I was speaking to a community of people committed to promoting a culture of sharing and creative adventures—no matter how minuscule the scale. But their commitment has been to do it as a campaign, as an artistic revolution. Addressing them I said, ‘I know you belong to different political factions and have different ideas about power and knowledge at a time when the country is hit uncannily by growing polarisation, you have come together here drawn by a sense of creative commitment. This grand meeting is the metaphor of ecological power, not only in Nepal but also in the whole of South Asia’.

Rigorous plenary sessions, discussions and efforts to agree and differ have made this NELTA symposium and conference a great occasion. Questions about creating exclusive English speaking zones in schools, would not be conducive to the creation of the ecology of teaching English.

The ecological approach to language use, as I said earlier, is not limited to its pedagogical practice. It is also related to the question of power and knowledge—in South Asia, Japan and Korea. Participants have come from these countries too. But these countries differ in terms of historicity, and their association with the English language. Braj Kachru, a great champion of dialects used outside the native English-speaking countries, creates circles in terms of the use of the language. In his system, India, Singapore and the Philippines are in the outer circle whereas countries like Nepal are in the expanding circle. Indians use English as a second language, whereas for us, English is a foreign language. Putting all the non-native English users under one category, therefore, is not realistic, according to this study.

For Nepal, the genesis of the language is not British rule. It is the native oligarchic rule established by Prime Minister Jung Bahadur Rana (1817-1877), who first opened a school to teach English to Rana children inside his palace in Thapathali by bringing two Englishmen in 1853. Education of such a colonial power's language was not easily accessible to the common people. But following the advice of some courtiers and pundits, admission was opened to the children of higher officials as well, in 1867. Love for the English language was the main reason for opening such a school. But a sense of exclusiveness played a crucial role in this. In that sense, English was associated with the concept of power in Nepal. Later on, this Durbar school was shifted to a spot near Ranipokhari, where the commoners too could get access.

English language teaching became a compulsory subject in the curriculum from the primary to tertiary levels of education in Nepal. So, when we talk about the ecology of English language teaching, the psyche of exclusiveness must be reversed. And English teaching, as said by the NELTA president, should be made locally accessible as an easy and productive means of learning.

***

What do you think?

Dear reader, we’d like to hear from you. We regularly publish letters to the editor on contemporary issues or direct responses to something the Post has recently published. Please send your letters to [email protected] with "Letter to the Editor" in the subject line. Please include your name, location, and a contact address so one of our editors can reach out to you.