Mastering action through collaborative learning

Introduction – Tones and Songs

How do people who speak a tonal language understand the songs that are sung in that language? Pitch and contour are often the key features, perhaps the only features that distinguish tones in a language, yet pitch and contour are key features of music as well, where their interplay is known to musicians and musicologists as melody. Herzog (1934) even used the term ‘speech-melody’ to describe what linguists call tones, but in this article we will reserve the term ‘melody’ for the underlying musical interplay of pitch and contour in songs (and the term ‘melodic note’ for the musical pitch of a particular item), and keep the term ‘tone’ for the linguistic interplay.

In those languages where tones need to be correctly expressed in order to understand speech, what happens when people sing? How do the melody of a song and the pitch and contour of the tones interrelate?

In this study, we are going to look at two styles of traditional Tai Phake songs; in both of which understanding the words are of crucial importance. This may be a concept not easily understood by Western readers; as Mark and Li (1966) commented “Western concert halls contain many people who do not understand a single word of some texts being sung’.

I want to emphasise this point by the following illustration.

This case study focuses on participatory action learning in the country's higher education system. In Part 1, the background and the main elements of the capacity development initiative are described and, in Part 2, a summary of the learning outcomes at various levels is given and some reflections on the achievements till date are included. It draws on theory, on personal and active experience in the initiative, and on the findings of multiple participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM & E) activities carried out throughout the capacity development process. As part of the learning experimentation personal learning stories are included in this case study. These stories aim to give some insight in the everyday learning process that was experienced, among others, about the enrolment in the initiative, the linkages established, and the emergent features that have come about in the innovation process.

Part 1: The capacity development initiative

Challenges in China's higher education

The field visit experience described above is the key part of a new course at the College of Humanities and Development (COHD) at China Agricultural University (CAU) in Beijing: “Community-based natural resource management – an introduction.” The course development experience – from design, through delivery, to evaluation – is part of a larger action research and capacity development initiative entitled “Participatory learning, curriculum development and mainstreaming of community-based natural resource management approaches in higher education in China” (COHD 2004). This initiative aims to contribute to the development and implementation of innovative, community-based and participatory development approaches in rural China.

Introduction

Manipuri or Meiteilon, the language of the Meiteis, is spoken in Manipur, a state situated in North East India. According to Grierson (1904), it is a Tibeto-Burman language of the Kuki-Chin sub-family. However, according to the classification made by Burling (2003), Manipuri is best treated as a separate entity rather than as a subfamily of the Naga-Kuki group. It is the official language of the state alongside English. As Manipur is also the home of many other hill tribes namely, Nagas and Kukis, Meiteilon serves as a lingua franca among the speakers of 29 dialects of the state.

Prior to the explanation of universal quantifiers in Manipuri, we look at the difference between distributivity and collectivity. There are two accounts of plural denotation, they are distibutivity and collectivity. Distributivity indicates reference to each individual member of a set (Mathews, 1997). We can say that a term A (plural term) is distributive only if A is true of some things and if it is true of each of them separately. If we say a term A denotes several things, it is equivalent to saying that it denotes each of them separately. We can say that an expression has collectivity denotation when the plural term A denotes several things jointly without denoting any of them separately. Term A is collective if it is not distributive.

Democracy has emerged as a new buzzword in the conduct of international politics after the end of the Cold War. With the beginning of the new millennium, promotion of democracy all over the world acquired an organisational force in the form of ‘Community of Democracies’ (CD) established in June 2000 at the initiative, largely of the US, in Poland. India joined CD as a founding member along with more than 100 other countries. The CD members expressed their ‘determination to work together to promote and strengthen democracy’ which was defined as a system where, besides other things, ‘will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government’. Subsequently, India also joined the UN Democracy Fund announced by the UN Secretary General in July 2005 and committed financial resources to the promotion and protection of democracy at the global level.

This was a significant shift in India's foreign policy, as hitherto, India had not joined any international effort aimed at promoting and strengthening democracy as the desirable political system in any country. India has been a democracy from the very beginning of its independence from the British. In fact, the British experience committed India's struggle for independence to democratic values and institutions. India had also preferred democratic order over any other political system in any country as an ideological option and even played a critical role on some occasions in helping democratic forces.

The Community Of Democracies 2005 Santiago Ministerial Commitment

“Cooperating For Democracy” Final Version

We, the Participants in the Third Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies held in Santiago on April 28–30, 2005 approve:

Reaffirming the vital importance of the observance of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the International Bill of Human Rights, as well as the fundamental principles of international law.

Recommitting to act in accordance with universally recognized standards of human rights with the purpose of strengthening dialogue and cooperation between states, peoples and individuals.

Reaffirming further our commitment to the “Warsaw Declaration: Toward a Community of Democracies”, approved at the First Ministerial Conference on June 27, 2000 in Warsaw, and to the implementation of the “Seoul Plan of Action: Investing for Peace and Prosperity,” and the “Community of Democracies Statement on Terrorism,” adopted at the Second Ministerial Conference, held in Seoul on November 16, 2002, declare that:

We renew our conviction that democracy, sustainable development, peace, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social, and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives.

We reaffirm that education in human rights and democracy is essential for participation in the democratic process and governance.

Foreign policies are not solely ideologically driven and India's is no exception in this respect. Democracy has been an important ideological preference for India, not only in the construction but also in the pursuance of its foreign policy. But this preference has been pursued within the constraints of perceived strategic and security interests, which in any case, get priority in any foreign policy scheme. The pursuance of democracy dimension in India's foreign policy has been expressedly evident in relation to its immediate neighbours, though during the past decade, particularly with the beginning of the new millennium, India has also associated itself with the efforts of promoting democracy at the global level. Joining of the global democratic front has, in many subtle and explicit ways, also influenced India's pursuance of democratic goals in the neighbourhood. It is only seldom that India has pro actively initiated moves to democratise authoritarian and dictatorial regimes in the neighbouring countries. There has been no ‘regime change’ strategy in India's foreign policy like the one evident in the foreign policies of some of the major global players like the US, the former Soviet Union and even China. These powers sought to ideologically harmonise the targeted regimes for securing strategic objectives. India mostly reacted to the rise of struggles for democracy in the neighbouring countries and responded to the calls of support on the basis of its perceived interests in the given context of political turbulence.

Security considerations for India were heightened in the neighbourhood with two major conflicts precipitated with China in 1962 and Pakistan in 1965. There are analysts who attribute the end of Nehru's era in India's foreign policy to the war with China. He barely survived eighteen months after being shocked by the Chinese attack. We have already noted Nehru's acceptance of failure of his China policy when he said; “we were living in a world of our own creation”. It was within his lifetime that he had to moderate his stance on democracy in relation to Nepal and Myanmar as a consequence of the Chinese aggression. He also had to seek military support from the West to face the Chinese challenge and nearly accept the Western conditions of seeking a solution of the Kashmir problem with Pakistan to the latter's satisfaction. It was the Pakistani obstinacy and its strategy to forge a strategic equation with China in 1963, even by conceding a part of Kashmir territory to settle Sino-Pak border issue, which helped Nehru wriggle out of the possibility of an uncomfortable compromise. The war imposed on India by Pakistan in 1965, it is said, cost the life of Nehru's successor. Prime Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri died of heart attack in Tashkent hours after signing a peace agreement with Pakistan under the Soviet mediation.

We the participants from:

Republic of Albania, People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Argentine Republic, Republic of Armenia, Australia, Republic of Austria, Azerbaijani Republic, People's Republic of Bangladesh, Kingdom of Belgium, Belize, Republic of Benin, Republic of Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Botswana, Federative Republic of Brazil, Republic of Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Chile, Republic of Colombia, Republic of Costa Rica, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Commonwealth of Dominica, Dominican Republic, Republic of Ecuador, Arab Republic of Egypt, Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Estonia, Republic of Finland, Georgia, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Guatemala, Republic of Haiti, Hellenic Republic, Republic of Hungary, Republic of Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Ireland, State of Israel, Italian Republic, Japan, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Korea, State of Kuwait, Republic of Latvia, Kingdom of Lesotho, Principality of Liechtenstein, Republic of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Principality of Monaco, Mongolia, Kingdom of Morocco, Republic of Mozambique, Republic of Namibia, Kingdom of Nepal, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Republic of Nicaragua, Republic of the Niger, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Kingdom of Norway, Republic of Panama, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Paraguay, Republic of Peru[…]

I feel greatly honoured and privileged to be present here today as we mark the opening of a new page in the history of this blessed country of Afghanistan. It is an honour that gives me particular satisfaction, as a friend of Afghanistan and a representative of the Indian people who constitute the world's largest democracy and the oldest in this region.

Today, as Baba e Millat lays the foundation stone of the Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the roots of a plant are being laid that will, through your nurturing and care, grow into a sturdy ‘panja chinar’ of democracy.

Representation is the very essence of democracy. This edifice, when it is built, will be the very heart of democracy in Afghanistan. We believe that democratic institutions need to be encouraged, nursed and promoted. We also believe that they should develop and evolve in accordance with the culture, values and native genius of each country.

We are partnering other democracies through the Global Democracy Initiative and have contributed $10 million to the UN Democracy Fund to be used to promote institutions based on the eternal values of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Afghanistan may be a young democracy but it has always been a plural society, with a unique mosaic of different ethnic and linguistic groups. The Afghan people have a tradition of democratic discourse through institutions like the Loya Jirgas.

Nehru was a great democrat but his democratic moorings, in practical policy terms, were tempered by various other considerations when it came to evolving India's foreign policy in general and the neighbourhood policy in particular. To begin with, there was a strong British imperial legacy of fortifying India's defence and promoting as well as protecting India's security in the sis Himalayan region. A perceptive columnist has described Nehru as a ‘Democratic Curzon’. Nehru could be accused of a Curzonian mindset on security issues but he was not in the same advantageous position as Curzon when it came to India's geo strategic assets. In a very critical sense, the British strategic vision of India and its security was breached by the partition as it created India's geostrategic disconnect with Afghanistan and Central Asia to Pakistan's advantage. That was perhaps one of the reasons why Britain persuaded the US to have an alliance with Pakistan to command the Central Asian geo strategic space. Pakistan, rather than remaining a part of the British Indian core, became a security concern for independent India. The evolving consequences of the partition also redefined India's northern security in the context of Sino Pakistani collaboration. With an eye on clipping India wherever possible, this collaboration also led to Pakistan ceding away in 1963 a part of Kashmir's territory to China. The framework of India's neighbourhood security was also radically altered by the rise of the communists in China after 1949.

I am delighted to be here today to inaugurate this “Conference on Democracy, Development and Social Inclusion”. I welcome the initiative taken by Dainik Jagran, one of our foremost Hindi dailies. I commend the publishers and the journalists associated with Dainik Jagran for the mark they have made in Indian journalism.

One of the most important aspects of our development process in the past two decades has been the impressive growth of the Indian language media, both print and television. This is testimony to the spread of literacy, and the rising political and social consciousness of the Indian people. It has contributed to the strengthening of our democratic processes and institutions. It has also benefited our development process, contributing to greater social inclusion. This explosive expansion of Indian language media has helped bring issues of development and empowerment onto the forefront of the national political agenda.

Ours has truly been a unique experiment in nation building. Initially, in the 1950s, that debate seemed to go in our favour, as democratic India did rather well in terms of development. As a doctoral student in the late 1950s, I recall many western scholars describing India as a ray of hope and a successful laboratory for combining both democracy and development. Regrettably, however, the 1960s were a lost decade for us. Three wars, severe drought, a balance of payments crisis and a series of political agitations disrupted the growth process.

I am honoured to be present here with President Bush and Secretary General Kofi Annan and other leaders at the launch of the UN Democracy Fund. This was proposed by President Bush at the UN General Assembly last year and has received widespread acclaim. Its relevance is underscored by its becoming a concrete reality in just a year's time.

May I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with the people of New Orleans and other regions, devastated by the destructive fury of Hurricane Katrina? Mr. President, you have our sympathies and support in your efforts to bring relief and succour to the people affected by this disaster.

Excellencies, India is proud of its democratic heritage which is rooted in the country's cultural ethos of tolerance, respect for different viewpoints and a ready embrace of diversity. Mahatma Gandhi led us into a non-violent struggle not only to free India from colonial rule but to also ensure to our people the exercise of their democratic rights. To him it was clear that the end to colonial rule would mean very little unless the broad masses of the people of India were empowered with democracy. We were also inspired by the ideals of freedom, equality and justice that were the hallmarks of the great French and American revolutions. India's awakening to freedom, in turn, inspired freedom movements in Asia and Africa. A whole family of independent and proud nations took their place on the world stage.