Education, conflict & development in Nepal: Historical precedents & modern dynamics.

摘要

This thesis discusses the relationship between educational development, foreign aid, and socio-political conflict in Nepal, and explores how Nepal's donors have been responding to the country's escalating Maoist insurgency. It explores whether Nepal's donors have considered the role of education in socio-political conflict, or have reexamined their support to education in light of the violence. The study is guided by two seemingly contradictory perspectives on education. One perspective, espoused by development agencies and global movements, is that education is a benign force of social progress and modernization, while the other perspective, made evident by the role of schools in situations of violent conflict worldwide, is of education as a vehicle for hegemonic control by autocratic ruling groups and/or the transmission of the values and prejudices underlying social grievances.;This thesis argues that conflict has helped to illuminate in Nepal what Bush and Saltarelli (2004) refer to as the "negative face of education". The case of Nepal serves as further substantiation of the importance of considering the role of schools in the perpetuation of discriminatory social practices. It also underscores Davies' (2005) exhortation for an increased research emphasis on conflict-sensitivity in education, a mainstreaming of conflict analysis within education planning, as well as a reconsideration of the purpose and methods of education in an increasingly interconnected and violent world.;The dichotomy between these two perspectives is evident in Nepal. While it has not directly instigated Maoist violence, education has contributed to the perpetuation of socio-political discord and has in effect become positioned at the centre of Nepal's protracted socio-political struggle. Donor-funded education reform programs in Nepal, however, have largely ignored the country's entrenched socio-political power balance and other contextual constraints, and have therefore merely obscured the continuance of traditional structures of elite dominance while doing little to improve education quality. Even with the onset of Maoist violence, Nepal's donors do not appear to have examined the contribution of education to social discord, nor the suitability of current vehicles of educational support in the context of conflict. Although these agencies have endeavored to respond to the conflict and make their overall programs conflict-sensitive, these efforts have generally circumvented the education sector.