International relations: Neither social nor science

Although International Relations (IR) is taught at Tribhuvan University as a social science discipline, one’s attempt to identify the ingredients of ‘social’ and ‘science’ in the prescribed syllabus of IR may become a futile struggle. Scanning the syllabus, one may notice a perceptible dearth of topics, concepts, approaches, and methods for enquiring, understanding, and interpreting the role of wider social interactions in a country’s foreign policy choices.

The syllabus was introduced in 2013 and revised after receiving ‘expert opinions’ in 2017. Still, misreading and misrepresenting IR only as the study of state power further repudiates the role that social units have in the production, accumulation, and reproduction of power. While IR fundamentally claims to study the relations between the state and non-state actors, the Nepali IR has principally failed to identify and inculcate the larger social aspects of such relations that help measure power as social production.

Firstly, teaching IR in Nepal is robbed of any academic inquiry into the existing social phenomenon that presents politics as a social activity. Secondly, its minuscule reliance on political science for any scientific observation is not sufficient to produce a good political scientist. Thirdly, its overemphasis on national power and national security divulges divergence between everyday social realities and political rhetoric. As such, IR is more of an elite sense, not a social science.

More elite, less social

The syllabus of IR is crammed with global, regional, and national issues. But those issues are scarcely studied and investigated in the context of social realities. Professors in the IR program may make a quick escape by divulging the lack of required human resources to teach the subject. Here, physical walls built by departments inside the university also share the blame. After all, the physical walls confine your epistemic behavior to the constructed sense of belonging to one academic discipline. It utterly prevents the discipline from becoming suitably interdisciplinary. Just lettering your syllabus as interdisciplinary doesn’t fulfill the objective unless an IR wala is made enthusiastic to sit in the classrooms of political science, sociology, anthropology, history, and economics prior to his/her foreign policy analysis of any diplomatic episodes. Sad but true, there are no practices of visiting philosophically associated departments and spending time in each other’s libraries and classrooms. In such a context, how and from where a young program like IR will acquire and develop the components of ‘social’ and ‘science’?

A prevalent irony in Tribhuvan University’s social sciences is the rationale behind classifying the academic subjects as social sciences. Generally, social science is understood as the study of society, social institutions, and social behavior. But those elements are missing in the syllabus and teaching of IR in the university.

University’s social sciences—which are largely expected to study social realities—have today poignantly failed to grasp the nature and characteristics of existing Nepali society. Despite the mediocre history of social sciences in Nepal, just a cliche(mentioned as an example below) may instantly attest that social sciences in the university remain ignorant of everyday social experiences. For instance, academic departments and programs at Tribhuvan University, including the IR program, are never tired of describing Nepal as a “poor and underdeveloped/ developing country”. But the exorbitant semester fees imposed on the students of “the poor and underdeveloped/ developing country” stands contrary to their claim. It’s an apt example revealing the indifference of university authorities to existing social realities shaped by class, wealth, income, and social inequalities. When the university doesn’t pay heed to the students of “the poor and underdeveloped/ developing country” opposing the exorbitant semester fees, it becomes obvious that the university is apathetic to social realities. In such an environment, programs like International Relations may attract more money to the university.

An IR wala never gets bored of reiterating foreign policy as the extension of domestic policies. But the social actors and factors associated with those domestic policies are seldom discussed in the classroom. It may be because of two reasons: Firstly, faculties find it easier to weave the accessible media narratives on the everyday changes taking place in global and regional politics. Secondly, IR students remain submissive to the details drawn from the elitist phenomenon of decision-making in world affairs. Actually, they find the world being presented to them in the classroom adventurous. As such, they rhapsodize world political affairs, where the amount of ‘social’ is swiftly relegated to the study of power and influence.

While the IR program at TU is all set to make a decade-long institutional history, students and young faculties in the IR are incessantly lured by the mere mentions and fleeting references of the globally renowned diplomats. Being ignorant of the significance of intellectual biography and intellectual history, their taste and flavor are either reduced to general likes/dislikes or driven by popular narratives. In the Nepali context, two historical characters are seemingly glorified in the IR classroom—PN Shah and Mahendra Shah—for their reported contributions to Nepal’s national security and diplomatic responsibilities. Interestingly, the social realities in their days never become the units of the syllabus, the matter of classroom discussion, and the topic or argument of dissertation writing/ supervision.

Although the key actors shaping Nepal’s foreign policy and diplomacy in different periods of time are taught and studied, neither the IR faculties nor the students have the access and understanding to identify the backroom boys and decipher their roles in foreign policy decision-making. Take the case of MCC as an example, the classroom discussions of international relations in the university were widely dependent on the news and views from the mainstream media. The IR faculties may be well paid for what they teach but their dependence on media analyses and internet surfing corrode the analytical and observatory capacities, which a university faculty should cultivate unremittingly. Consequently, their routine emphasis on the secondary data positioned around the matters of national power, national security, and national interest fails to comprehend the social realities shaping both the historical and contemporary episodes with regard to what is nation and national.

Mere sense, no science

Social science studies society on various fronts. In today’s academic milieu, while political science, sociology, anthropology, and history themselves have botched to report, investigate, and analyze society and social institutions treading on the existing philosophical, historical, and theoretical standpoints, it may not be fitting to expect a new program like IR—which theoretically and philosophically doesn’t have anything of its own—concentrate its teaching and study on the inevitability of social elements shaping foreign policy decisions?

Already, as a discipline, IR is preoccupied with the interests and relations between the states. Saddest of all, in developing countries, those interests and relations are also not taught as per global academic practices, commenced and continued by the best IR schools around the world.  As a result, faculties and students in countries like ours may make sense of the events and phenomena but can rarely practice it as a social science.

After all, the strands of society are largely elapsed in their approaches and analyses. In all the dissertations produced by the students of the IR department since 2016, the social component is relentlessly missing. A cursory look over the analysis and inferences drawn in their dissertations may indicate the presence of scientific research methods but a thorough probe into the dissertation may reveal the story of duplication and oversimplification. Dissertations produced on Nepal-China relations are an apt example. How justifiable is it to pen a dissertation on Nepal-China relations without knowing basic Mandarin or the basic attributes of Chinese society? Is it convincing and per the popular research ethics to pull the information already available in Google or archives and reproduce it as your own analysis? The most bewildering aspect of teaching IR at the university is the acceptability of the dissertations without any scientific knowledge of the proposed issues. Not even a handful of dissertations are based on field visits, participant observations, ethnography, and interviews. Against such a backdrop, on the basis of what remaining yardsticks can IR be considered a social science in the Nepali context? Methodologically, it has compromised science over sense. In terms of perspectives, it has dismissed social interests and social relations over the promotion of elite interests and power relations, which are often misunderstood as national interest in IR classrooms.

'Khambandi'

Injecting a few components of ‘social’ and ‘science’ into the disciplinary hat of International Relations won’t make its approach social, however. Instead, the understanding of ‘social’ may vary from one IR walla to the other, at least, until power remains at the core of its disciplinary existence. The element of ‘science’ that the syllabus is supposed to carry—not in a prescriptive sense, but more in a reflective sense—has already been compromised to the 'Khambandi' culture. When acquaintances come to know that your department has received funds from the University Grants Commission (UGC) or elsewhere, you will see ‘experts’ in droves being welcomed with 'Khambandi'—paid in an envelope for their ‘expertise’. Despite the reckless duplication in the contents of the syllabus being revised, plagiarism in the units, and above all, more guff-gaaf and less expertise in the process of syllabus-making, they don’t hesitate to receive the 'Khambandi'. On what moral and professional grounds is that justifiable? When experts and practitioners are lured more by 'Khambandi', faculties are dependent on Google and popular narratives, and students are reliant only on the faculties’ slides, one can imagine the future of Nepali IR under the semester system in the oldest university of Nepal.