Language Politics in Nepal –2

Dr. Ram Kumar Dahal -Professor, CEDA, TU.

The Mayor of Kathmandu Municipal Corporation also took Oath in Newari. The publications of newspapers in various languages were also promoted and, accordingly, few more newspapers were also published in private sector. However, the government provided no additional facilities to them.

It would be essential to have a bird's eye view on the attitudes and behaviors of various political parties of Nepal towards the languages of Nepal. The principle political parties of Nepal, after the restoration of Multi Party Democracy (MPD) in 1990, held almost similar views regarding languages. Their election manifestoes published during 1991 and during mid term elections, (1994) showed almost similar views regarding languages. Both the Nepali Congress (NC), and the Communist Party of Nepal, Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), the partners during the historic mass uprising of 1990 had tried to encourage the development of all the languages of the nation. The two Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and CPN-ML held almost similar views. (NC: 1991, CPN UML 1991, NDPs: 1991). The Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP), in its Election Manifesto published in Hindi and English, is in favour of ending discriminations in all fields including in language. (NSP: 1991).  The major political parties are   also followed similar language policy in the 1999 parliamentary elections.

Language controversy remained a burning issue since the political change of 1951 in Nepal. Nepal Tarai Congress (NTC) since its establishment in 1951, gave a clarion call for the recognition of Hindi as a second language of Nepal. Among the linguistic comminutes in Tarai, the Hindi movement took a dramatic turn in 1956 when KI Singh led United Democratic Party (UDP) Government articulated to pose certain challenge to Hindi by issuing a government directive which aimed at the removal of Hindi from the school education. "Save Hindi committees were formed to support Hindi Movement which was supported by important political parties during the 50's - Nepali Congress (NC), Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), and Nepal Praja Parishad (NPP). In 1957, V.N. Jha, the leader of the NTC stated that "we will not allow the removal of Hindi from the medium of education." During the Panchayat days, other languages except Nepali remained neglected and the New Education Plan introduced in 1971 discouraged the use of other languages except Nepali; as the medium of instruction in educational institutions including Hindi. However, Hindi was prescribed as optional subjects in schools and colleges both in school and colleges.

The regionalization of politics and political parties has encouraged the regionalization of languages too in Nepal. The various linguistic communities, including the minorities since 1990 have made various attempts to promote their own languages. Hindi in Tarai and Newari in Kathmandu Valley are taking the leading roles. Gore B. Khapangi, former school teacher and later turned ethnic activist, had organized the mountain and hill ethnic and linguistic groups Se Ta Ma Gu Ra Li and had championed for the advocacy of their languages including their proper role in politics. For them, language has become a powerful means to achieve their political ends- to have a due share in the central decision making process. In spite of these small efforts, speech communities of the smaller and lesser-known languages in Nepal still feel insecure due to uncertain prospect they face. They strongly oppose the dominant role of Nepali and demand complete equality in this respect. Various linguistic groups as mentioned in Art 6, are also challenging the constitutional provisions concerning language. Some political parties including Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) have made a clarion call for the recognition of the regional language as official languages in local bodies. The Kathmandu Municipal Corporation (KMC) declared Newari as its official language whereas Rajbiraj and Janakpur Municipalities and Dhanusha District Development Committee (DDC) declared Maithili as their official languages. This process of recognition became a subject of heavy controversy in the political circle. Even the court seriously questioned the constitutionality and legality of such declaration. The Supreme Court of Nepal (SCN), on April 14, 1998, declared it unconstitutional on the ground that Article 6 of the present Constitution clearly mentions that "the Nepali language shall be the official language" of Nepal.

The minority linguistic groups have openly challenged the verdict of the court on the ground that it had violated the right to languages of smaller groups and undermined the role of other languages except Nepali. In order to challenge the state, the linguistic activists formed "United Struggle Committee for Language Right" with Amaresh Narayan Jha of Nepal Maithil Smaj as its convenor. The three advisors of the Committee were one MP associated with Manka Khala (Newari) movement, Padma Ratna Tuladhar and two University Professors: Dr. Krishna B. Bhattachan, and Subodh Narayan Jha. The members of the Committee represented various linguistic and ethnic activists like Suresh Ale Magar from Akil Nepal Janatati Sangh  Rajbhai Jakami from Newa Ratriya Andolana, Parasuram Tamang from Nepal Janatati Mahashangh, MP Pari Thapa from Akhil Nepal Janatati Sammellan, Dr.Om Gurung from Akil Nepal Buddhi Jibi Sangh, Mukti Pradhan from Nepal Rastriya Buddhi Jibi Sangh, Krishna Sen from Akhil Nepal Jana Sanskritic Sangh, Suresh Karmacharya from Nepal Janajati Mukti Andolan, Dhirendra Premarshi from Maithil Vikas Manch, Krishna P. Shrestha from Dwalkha Gwahar Khalak  and Biswonath Pathak from Awadhi Sanskritic Bikash Parishad, (Maharjan, 1998: 46-47).

In order to pressure the SNC to rethink over its verdict, this Committee started campaigning and organized a seminar on "Use of National Languages in Local Bodies and the Supreme Court's Order", which was addressed by MPs and language activists-Padma R. Tuladhar, Krishna Gopal Shrestha, Hridayesh Tripathi, Mahanta Thakur, Malla K. Sundar, Keshav Sthapit and Suresh Ale Magar. The speakers strongly demanded the equal treatment to all the languages and opposed the decision of the Court. Moreover, further meeting were also held in Rajbiraj on May 11, 1998. As part of their protest, Akhil Nepal Janajati Sangh on March 31, 1998, submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister against the Court's order. The order, as one Newari Daily reported, was also condemned by Bam Dev Gautam, General Secretary of CPN-ML and Prachanda, the General Secretary of CPN-Unity Centre (Sandhaya Times March 31, 1998; Maharjan: 1998: 46-47). Appeals had also been made with the Public Service Commission (PSC), a constitutional body, to show due respect to all the languages of the nation. (Yatri, 2053: 292) The decision of the Supreme Court of Nepal (SCN) of Jestha 18, 2056 B.S. regarding the language issue further brought the various linguistic minorities of different geographical regions into one common forum to challenge/oppose the court's  decision The Manka Khala movement  had also challenged the political system by declaring Nepal Bandh and other pressure activities in the capital city. The combined efforts of various linguistic groups to oppose the government and court decision regarding language had created further problems in this direction. The decay of smaller or lesser-known languages and the government's failure to promote them have added some more challenges/problems in this direction. The linguistic minorities are dissatisfied with the government on the ground that it had not paid proper heed for the promotion and modernization of their languages, scripts and literatures. Some linguistic groups in Nepal point out that language planning in Nepal has not been done properly and scientifically, while other claim that language has been highly politicized in Nepal.

In to-day's Nepal, language issues has been emerging as an acute  problem. In order to solve the existing problems, proper attention should be paid in time so that it may not emerge as a severe one. In order to solve the existing problems, languages in Nepal must be studied in three dimensions: language as a problem, language as a right and language as a resource. Language problem, as other problems of the society, might be studied, resolved peacefully and handled positively by the government in consultation with various linguistic groups of the nation. Their right to develop their own languages must be recognized in practice. The use of vernacular languages in education as mentioned in the 1951-UNESCO Report must be encouraged upto High School level. The Socio-cultural provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966 should strictly be implemented. Moreover, the Directive Principles and Policies of the State concerning language, as outlined in Article 25 and 26 of the present Nepalese Constitution, should also be effectively implemented into practice. Language, as Fishman opines, must be treated as important resources of the nation and proper attention should be given to protect, promote and develop them. It is as Fishman views an  important "resource of value" but it is  not a resource in the same sense as agriculture, labor, industry and waterpower. A scientific and most up-to-date linguistic survey to determine the status and position of various languages of Nepal should be conducted and accordingly, a scientific, need-based language promotion and planning policy should be formulated and promoted. The government should pay due attention to the protection and promotion of the inchoate and lesser-known languages, especially to those that are on the verge of decay and mother tongue education institutions in various parts of the country particularly in the remote areas. The recommendations given by Rastriya-Bhasa Nitisujhab Ayog (Commission for the Recommendation of National Language Policy) in its report, (Rastriyabahsa Niti Sujhav Ayog Ko Partibedan) in 1994, and by the Rastriya Sanstritik Samiti 2049 VS (National Cultural Committee, 1992 should be implemented phase wise with sincere attention. The languages of Nepal are in different status/position, some are unconscious/sleeping and some half conscious, some conscious and some walking. In this context, it must be determined categorically which language needs which status/ treatment and which type of phase wise development. Different policies and strategies should be formed to promote them. For Newari and Limbu, which have rich written and literary tradition, only government encouragement is enough for codification and standardization. But for the smaller languages, which have their own scripts but have not developed, need different treatment. Special government treatment should be given to those languages, which are on the verge of decay.  Similarly, only establishing mother tongue institutions are not enough but they need active government financing and other initiations. Moreover, in order to frame an appropriate, timely and need based language and cultural policy, to develop harmony and cooperation among various linguistic groups, to settle cultural and linguistic problems, to define the role of languages and to conduct high level academic research regularly, special and most representative high-power linguistic and cultural commission should be organized.  As the courts are the guardians of the constitutional rights of the citizens, the languages activists   should try to pressurize the parliamentarians to amend the constitutional provisions concerning language and create strong lobby and public opinion in their favour. The languages of 61 Jana Jatis should be particularly encouraged and protected by the government.

Conclusion:
As the awareness among people of a common linguistic identify springing from their shared experience serves the building bloc of national integration, it is important for the government to accord due place to each language and culture so that linguistic diversity in the nation attempts to foster purpose politics of nation building. It is equally important to overcome a sense of alienation, seclusion and discrimination and form broader identity.

Headline | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | International | Past |