Contemporary Nepali Literature...Worth Reading?

By Bhaskar Gautam

Literature in Nepal is widely viewed as an unproductive sector. Today, whether it is literature or some other genre of writing, the ultimate question that ordinary people ask is: what societal impact does this creation have? Does it have a precise target group; does it have definite audience etc.? Or, say, does some piece of literature contribute to community? And if it does contribute, how are its contributions measured?

When talking about Nepali literature, therefore, the question that often puzzles me is: are there people who read it? Or, say, is reading Nepali literature necessary? Is there way to link Nepali literature with day-to-day life? And then, if we are to talk about evidence, in the history of Nepali literature no literary hero has ever succeeded in making a convincing argument that reading literature is necessary. It is obvious, of course, that reading is necessary; but need we declare that it must be literature, and specifically Nepali literature? Even if we do agree that reading Nepali literature is necessary, how do we understand what we are reading?

The first point I want to make is Nepali literature is culturally poor. If we discuss the last fifty years, even today the heroes of Nepali literature are those who emerged during the first half of the Modern Period of Nepali literature (1990-2020 B.S.). Literature has remained at the same stage for the last fifty years. When we discuss any Nepali literary personality or style of writing, we have to hark back to Devkota, Sama, Paudyal, or a few others. In the period following these writers, though different literary personalities created some good materials, they did not lead any literary trend. As a result, today, Nepali literature has nothing of its own style and substance. The outside world does not know Nepali literature for its contribution to world literature.

Reading is, no doubt, among the best habits that people can posses. But there may not be enough good reasons why these readings must consist of literatary writings. All that seems to matter in today’s world is day-to-day living. People seem to be looking for instant results and benefits. For this, we need a good piece of writing that can grab people’s attention and meet their interests. Besides a small and hard-core group of writers, no one cares whether the writing is functional or literary in nature.

Being a reader of literature myself, I need any piece I go through to be interesting and inspiring. After reading the piece, the reader should say, "It is fantastic", or "Oh! I’ve got to re-read it", or "What a magical trend and/or style the writing has," etc. And do any of you recall such a piece of contemporary Nepali literature? Yes, exceptions always exist; but what about the general trend of Nepali literature? Technically, some writings may be perfect in style, but if the reader doesn’t feel attached to it, what is its use?

I also feel that reading literature cannot be a matter of compulsion. If, after reading a few writings, someone does not want to pursue the book further, then what can I, as a literary fan, do to encourage them? Rather than setting hard and fast rules, reading literature must remain a matter of interest, passion and enthusiasm. Most often, despite displaying all these qualities, Nepali youths don’t get enough good and graceful materials to read: and who is to blame for this? I have no readymade solutions for these problems. The only point I wish to make is that the current situation is adverse to increasing the readership of Nepali literature.

Not all of this is the fault of writers. On the other side, the increasing publication sector in Nepal is as professionally disorganized as other industrial sectors. This drawback in the publishing industry, the only bridge between writers and readers, is no doubt one of prime factors that contributes to poor readership. The general bookseller-turned-publisher doesn’t realize that s/he is also part of a service industry. In general, there is no practice of hiring copy editors whose competence authors can trust. The existence of literary agents is yet to be imagined in Nepal. Many a time even the need for elementary proof reading is ignored. Publishers seldom think about publishing ethics; it is solely the rate of return that they are concerned with.

Greater obstacles also pose a challenge to increasing the readership for Nepali literature. It is often heard that we don’t have reading culture and the fact is: the literacy rate is low. If, in case, any person tries to understand this problem, then s/he has to hark back to poor educational planning, bad policies and the uninspiring way that academic knowledge is heaped upon students both at schools and universities. Students complete their education with a poor educational culture, adjusting to increasingly deteriorating educational systems and environments. For example, after completing one’s education, an insignificant percentage of people contributes to any discipline, or participates responsibly in civil society. Large numbers of students come out of school and college wondering only how to make a living; and often, their academic degree is in vain. These constraints lie behind the problem of an unfavorable environment to fostering a reading and writing culture.

All these above arguments support those youths who challenge the quality of Nepali literature; but not those who challenge without actually reading Nepali literature. So, for professional writers complaining that readers do not seek out Nepali literature, the best suggestion could be to meet people’s diverse interests and passions through simple, fine and graceful writing, rather than gunning for a great, enthralling piece of writing. Yes, there are many constrains and the situation is tough. But if writers fail to do this, where will Nepali literature stand in the next decade?

( B Gautam is a student intrested in Nepali Literature)

Demystifying Democracy

By Mahendra Lawoti

Even though democracy has been widely accepted as the best political principle and method for governing people, there has not been as much unanimity as to what sorts of democratic institutions are appropriate for different countries. For a long time, the Westminster model and its majoritarian or winner-take all institutions were more or less considered the only way of practicing democracy. In the sixties, with the failure of the winner-take all institutions in the newly independent plural societies and the empirical demonstrations of consociational democracies in non-English speaking European plural societies, alternative democratic models emerged.

Nobel Laureate Sir Arthur Lewis (1965) and Arend Lijphart (1969) were influential in showing inapplicability of majoritarian institutions in plural societies. Lewis demonstrated that the Westminster institutions that addressed class based cleavages of homogenous societies did not address the concerns of societies divided by cultural cleavages. Empirical work by Lijphart (1976, 1984) and others established that the Westminster/majoritarian institutions do not work in plural societies. entration of power where as consensual institutions ensure diffusion of power. Federal structures, proportional electoral system, balanced bicameralism and multi party systems are consensual institutions whereas unitary governance structures, plurality electoral system and two party systems are majoritarian institutions. The former diffuse power whereas the later concentrate. Diffusion and power sharing arrangements ensures inclusion of diverse sub-cultural groups in the polity. Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Papua New Guinea and Germany have mostly consensual whereas the UK, New Zealand, France and Botswana mostly have majoritarian institutions. Countries like the US, Canada, Italy and India have mixture of both types of institutions. The general assumption is that consensus (also labeled inclusive) democracies are better in resolving conflicts and are "kinder, gentler" whereas majoritarian democracy are stable, efficient and perform better in homogenous societies.

In Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six countries Arend Lijphart explodes the myth that stable majoritarian institutions are necessarily efficient and better in macro-economic management. Majoritarian democracies are more stable than consensual democracies but analysis of the 36 established democracies reveals that stability does not result into higher productivity. However, in terms of resolving conflict and quality of democracy, the consensual democracies are conclusively better. Lijphart concludes that "majoritarian democracies do not outperform the consensus democracies on macroeconomic management and control of violence - in fact, the consensus democracies have the slightly better record- but the consensus democracies do clearly outperform the majoritarian democracies with regard to the quality of democracy." By this study he demonstrates that the consensus institutions are not only better in including all segments of the society in the polity but that they are equally capable, if not better, in macroeconomic management and controlling violence than the majoritarian institutions. The latest Human Development Report (2000) is also critical of majoritarian democracies: it states that some of them "harm human rights" and "exclusion and marginalization of minorities" occur in those democracies.

The book is an expanded version of his widely acclaimed Democracies (1984) where Lijphart had analyzed 21 democracies. In that study all the countries were developed, and were from the west except Japan. In the current analyses of 36 democracies, 11 are developing and 12 are non-western countries. The reason for less number of non-west and developing countries included in the analysis is due to the rigorous criteria used for defining democracy.

Nepal and its Democratic Institutions :

Large-scale comparative studies have significant value for emerging democracies like Nepal and their efforts at consolidation. The suggestion is not to ditto copy institutions from established democracies but to learn from their long, and sometimes difficult, experiences so that we may avoid some of the pitfalls. Even if we copy, we should copy institutions found in plural monarchical democracies and not from England, a homogenous society, as has been done in Nepal.

The defenders of the current Constitution and political institutions say that the problem is not with the Constitution and its institutions but with those who manage them. However, closer analysis of institutions reveal that had the institutions been designed otherwise, the behavior of leadership may have been somewhat different than now, for formal institutions do affect behavior, though they solely cannot guarantee better and accountable behavior.

For example, many of the current problems are due to abuse of power by political leaders. One particular result has been institutionalization of corruption. No one denies the fact that corruption has become widespread. The Nepali Congress leaders who have been in power are the most responsible for it for they have ruled the country for more than 75 percent of the time. However, till date, the Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has not charged a single NC bigwig of corruption. Why? Because the NC, as the ruling party, is influential in appointing the CIAA commissioners.

Had such bodies like the CIAA been made more independent, the chances for those bodies to act independently would have increased accountability. For instance, if appointments of members of the constitutional bodies had to be approved by two thirds of the lower house, upper house or joint houses (one of many alternate ways to appoint more independent constitutional bodies), the party in power would not have been able to nominate "yes minister" commissioners to those bodies since opposition parties can stop such appointments by not ensuring two thirds votes to those candidates. More independent commissioners have higher probability of charge-sheeting even the corrupt NC ministers. It would have sent the message to the NC ministers that membership in the NC leadership does not make them immune from being charge-sheeted with corruption. Such an action can decrease open looting of the country considerably.

The above example shows how institutions can be designed to affect behavior of powerful people, be they in the executive, the judiciary or elsewhere. Other constitutional bodies can be made more independent so that they ensure horizontal accountability, and governing structures can be designed to diffuse power so that multiple sources of power ensures accountability through check and balance at all levels of government and power centers.

Formal institutions alone cannot stop irregularity and irresponsibility of those wielding power but well designed institutions can influence better behavior. The challenge in Nepal is to reform its democratic institutions to make them capable in doing that. This is a minimum requirement for consolidation of Nepali democracy.

(M. Lawoti is writing Ph.D. dissertation on democratization in Nepal)

Cracking the Governance Puzzle

By Shyam K Upadhyaya

A pedestrian is walking on the footpath of a street in Kathmandu. Suddenly, a heavy object falls in front of him from the roof of a house at his side. He is barely saved from being hit on the head. He gets perplexed for some time and walks over to the traffic police and complains about the event. The police bluntly tells him, "I can’t do anything about it; that is not my responsibility." He comes back and talks to the house-owner. The house-owner says he did not do it; the monkey did it. Not even a word of apology. This is not a piece of fiction; something similar was reported to occur in Kathmandu a few months back. Events like this are everyday examples of governance problems in Nepal. It has been recognized that governance has an important role in the socio-economic development of a nation. Poor governance has been signaled out as one of the major factors behind the failure of development efforts in some developing countries, while good governance has been credited as major factor behind the success of other countries. Consequently, both national governments and donor agencies are devoting increasing attention to governance problem.

It is fairly obvious to everyone that governance in Nepal is in chaos. Even though the country is having minimum necessary institutional infrastructure in place for good governance, the state of governance has deteriorated over time. In this context, the publication of the study report Good Governance in Nepal: Perspectives from Panchathar and Kanchanpur Districts is timely. The study in which the present publication is based aimed at "assessing the opinions held by the people in the districts regarding the state of governance at the national and local level and compare its findings with those of the central level assessment undertaken earlier."

The study was conducted in Panchathar and Kanchanpur districts. The research methodology involved a series of workshops in which the teams of researchers discussed eight basic governance areas with the various groups of stakeholders in the district headquarter and selected VDCs of those two districts. Eight governance issues considered were: state viability and sovereignty, structure of government, electoral arrangements, levels of government, management of power, government effectiveness: institutions, government effectiveness: economic, and the treatment of the population.

The study report has benefited from the lucid and readable writing style of Bihari Krishna Shrestha. The report consists of six chapters. Chapter one outlines the objective, scope, and methodology of the study. Chapter two discusses the socio-economic condition of Nepal and of the study districts. An overview of the governance context in Nepal is presented in Chapter three. Chapter four presents the main results of the study. Chapter five compares the findings of the study with those of the central level assessment undertaken earlier. Chapter six sums up the conclusions of the study.

Not surprisingly, the study finds that people’s opinion of the governance situation in the country fairly pessimistic. Many findings of this study are similar to the ones found by the central level study. All governmental and non-governmental organizations and people at the local level held the opinion that the governance situation in Nepal is alarming. More interesting is the observation that the people most responsible for governance such as government line agencies, Village Development Committees (VDCs), and District Development Committees (DDCs) officials, themselves agree that their job performance is very poor.

The present study also uncovers some difference of opinions between local level people and the urban elite at the centre. For example, people at the centre were not aware of the fact that the consequence of bad governance at the central level was much more hurtful to the people at the local level. Also, the people at the centre were more optimistic about the democratic development in the country, while people in the districts were not very satisfied with these developments as they observe the corruption and irregularities occurring in the election process much more closely.

The study also finds that the capabilities of VDCs and DDCs to plan and implement development programs are very poor. The findings of the study raise questions about the usefulness of the DDCs as they are functioning now. The DDCs have very little influence on the programs of line agencies and yet, they are entrusted with a high responsibility for implementing development programs such as the Agriculture Perspective Plan.

Is there a way out of this mess? The study sees some rays of hope on the proliferation of the self-help groups in recent years. There are many unanswered questions, however. How do self-help groups help to improve governance? One possibility is that self-help groups contribute to the promotion of participatory democracy. Economists like Dani Rodrik of Harvard University and Avinash Dixit of Princeton University have shown, in theoretical models, that participatory democracy induces cooperation and minimizes social conflict by altering preference so that people become more public-spirited, by putting restrictions on feasible redistribution, and through repeated interactions among political groups.

There is also a question of sustainability of such self-help groups. If one looks at the history of rural Nepal, one finds that self-help groups are not entirely a new phenomenon. Communities had joined together for a common purpose in the past as well. However, such community spirit seems to have declined over time. Moreover, although self-help groups such as forest users groups have made useful contribution to the regeneration of forests in Nepal, it is not clear whether the poorer members of the community have benefited from those community managed forests. It is possible that elite members of the community are getting disproportionate benefits from these innovations too. More careful studies are needed about the dynamics of these groups before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

Overall, though, the study has been successful in eliciting and documenting local people’s concern on governance situation in the country and is well worth reading.

(S K. Upadhyaya is a freelance researcher based in Kathmandu)

Pen Portrait

By Ajit Baral

Priced at NRs. 1112 (IRs. 695) is this book—A Brush With Life. Oh! God, it’s cruel, the price. But this is the cruelty I am ready to put up with. Why?

Satish Gujral is painter, architect, sculptor and muralist all rolled into one. His chief bete noire is (who else? But) M.F. Husain, an Indian Salvador Dali of gimmickry. F.N Soza, S.H. Raza, Jehangir Sabavala are his friends. Whom he reviles. And says, are either dead or dying. He had unfettered access to Pandit Nehru and Indira Gandhi. His brother Inder Kumar Gujral is the former Prime Minister. He was apprenticed to David Sequeiros and Diego Riveria, who along with Jose‘ Clemente Orozco formed a triumvirate of Mexican art world. Etc. And to cap it all, he was deaf. Until he was well past seventy years of age. For a deaf, his is a remarkable achievement. So, his book promises to be nothing but an enthralling read. Moreover, he is a celebrity. A top-notch and much sought-after at that. And you can’t expect a book by and about the celebrity to be cheap. Much less his. As there is Khuswant Singh, that irresistible man, to add to the celebrity status of the book; he has edited and written the foreword of the book.

Gujral has painted the portraits. Pandit Nehru’s. Lala Rajput Rai’s. Indira Gandhi’s. And his own as well. But he felt that the self-portrait lacked something, didn’t express his self. May be. He has expressed his feelings and ideas through variegated art forms—architecture, sculptor, mural. He, however, felt these art forms to be inadequate to express his own self. May be. So, what he does? To express his self. Wield a pen? Pen the self-portrait? And see how things pan out? Yes.

A Brush With Life is Satish Gujral’s brush with the pen. Brushing brush, etc., aside, he lets the pen do his life’s talking. And it does in quite decent manner. With lots of candor. Without narcissism. Without self-indulgence. His life unfolds. In a series of events. Silence descends in him as he tries to cross a river. Shorn of his power to communicate to the outer world, scorned and taunted— he has Mauppasant’s short stories and Urdu poems as his friend. Time leads him to Mayo School of Art. In Lahore. Then to JJ School of Art. In Bombay.

Narrative flits between times. Freedom struggle is razing. And his family is caught up in it. The country goes through the throes of parturition. He witnesses the horrendity of mass exodus of people across the frontier. This partition haunts him. He tries to exorcise this haunting later through a series of paintings on partition.

Helped by a recommendation by a cultural attaché, Octavio Paz, he goes to Mexico on a scholarship. Is later apprenticed to Diego Riveria and David Sequeiros; Jackson Pollock and Williem de Kooning, the exponents of gestural painting and abstract expressionism, precedes Gujral in their apprenticeship with the later artist. He meets series of women there. They try to forge a liaison with him. One does, as he concedes, a favor for him. By severing "the complicated knot of sexual inhibition and ambiguities in which [he]… entangled… [himself]."

His later writings dwell on his relationship with many eminent personalities. Fidel Castro. Pablo Neruda. Frido Kahlo. Art critics, Charles Fabri and Roop Krishna, who have diametrically opposite view regarding Amrita Shergil’s artistic prowess. Ved Mehta etc. And building up of relationship. With Kiran, etc., who becomes his life partner. They also relate with his point of view. Like, about Husain and his art. He writes: " With Husain, gimmickry has become an art form by itself—people found his antics more amusing than his paintings."

The later chapters – Mexico, New Delhi, Voyages—with the explication of his relationship with well-known personalities make an entertaining read. But, the last chapter turns out to be his biography of Inder Kumar Gujral—with intrigues of emergency and Inder Kumar Gujral’s relationship with Indira in the turbulent emergency period described in details—rather than his won autobiography.

His writings are interspersed with Urdu couplets and delightful anecdotes about scams in American Art; histrionics of Andy Warhole, the cult figure of Pop Art; love affair of Octavio Paz that would consummate in Satish’s quarter, etc. These make his book a delightful read. But there are certain ellipses, which downsize the value of the book. He doesn’t write anything about the severance of his ties with other members of Progressive Artists Group. Nor he mentions his relationship with them. The book is conspicuous with absence of his views about Indian art and its trends. He doesn’t hide the fact that he is a communist. Rather his writing focuses on his being a communist. And his association with Marxist poets in Mexico, Faize Ahmed Fiaze and Sequeiros, who he says, use poems and paintings respectively for ideological didacticism. So, readers would have loved if he had shed light on how he was inclined towards Communism.

This autobiography makes an enthralling read in bits and patches. But only a decent read as a whole. Sad. Because his persona promises his book to be a wonderful read.

(A. Baral is looking for cheaper books on or about art to read.)