Search

While decolonisation is usually discussed in relation to countries that were formally colonised, countries that have not been formally colonised have also faced challenges related to colonialism. In this case, it is worth considering whether decolonial theory has more widespread applicability to respond to global challenges faced in the postcolonial era. This article documents the historical trajectories of colonisation and decolonisation of the school curriculum in Nepal. Although Nepal was never formally colonised, the introduction of modern schooling in Nepal was informed by the British colonisation of India, where local languages were replaced by English in the curriculum, diminishing the value of local languages and knowledges. Against this backdrop, the Nepal government issued a series of policies supporting Nepali supremacy, but the expansion of English was not significantly challenged. Rather, the policies resulted in a double colonisation of ethnic/Indigenous languages: external colonisation by English, and internal colonisation by the Nepali language. However, significant decolonisation efforts have recently made space for minoritised languages in the curriculum. This article illustrates these colonisation and decolonisation waves, shaped by the government, local communities and other actors. Drawing on Nepal's legislative and educational policies, the article relates language policy decisions and actions as decolonial efforts to support ethnic/Indigenous languages and explores the implications for understanding tensions around decolonisation of curriculum.

Language policy and planning in Nepal has been contested due to the co-existence of multiple contradictory discourses concerning teaching and learning of local, national, foreign, and international languages. Recently a multilingual policy was issued to create space for the once-banned ethnic/indigenous languages in public schooling, further complexifying the landscape. A few studies have paid attention to teaching and learning of the lesser taught ethnic/indigenous and foreign languages; however, what discursive orientations have contributed towards enabling (or constraining) the use of such languages in education and how have yet to receive scholarly attention. Framed by the perspectives of the intersectionality of discourses, and drawing on in-depth interviews with policymakers, headteachers, teachers, students, and their parents of five schools of Nepal, this paper concludes that the interplay between broader discourses such as globalisation, neoliberal marketisation and nationalism has played a significant role in shaping language policy decisions and localised practice of language(s). It also reveals that the spaces for ethnic/indigenous languages in education are delimited, in preference of English, Nepali, and other emerging foreign languages, leading to their further marginalisation. Such trends diminish the potential use of lesser taught languages, threatening Nepal's multilingual education policy towards sustaining existing linguistic diversity.

The medium of instruction (MOI) has been a contested issue in multilingual polities globally, as English medium of instruction (EMI) has seen unprecedented growth, threatening the use and sometimes very survival of local/indigenous and even national languages. While the struggles to address related issues have been well researched, how and why local level policymakers enact the well-meant national policies in a way that marginalises indigenous languages and expands EMI has yet to receive due attention. The research is scarce especially when language policy and planning (LPP) is dealt with as part of overall educational governance. Drawing on in-depth interviews with senior policymakers in two similar constituencies in Nepal, and appropriating David Block's agency framework [(2012). Unpicking agency in sociolinguistic research with immigrants. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), "Multilingualism, discourse, and ethnography" (pp. 47-60). Routledge.], the paper shows the elements of structure that enable or delimit the decision-making of different policymakers concerning the MOI. While professing multilingualism as their ideal language policy, the policymakers are designing policies that sideline indigenous languages. This unintended outcome results from dealing with diverse aspects of structure, i.e. history, physical and imagined spaces, culture, and discourses around languages. Though situated within Nepal, the discussion has wider implications for understanding agentive acts in this globalising world and for LPP as part of general educational policymaking.