Oped»
Linguistic limbo
AUG 26 -
Language being the most important tool of human expression, it is wise to ponder how best to incorporate languages into the foundations of society: by allowing everyone to express themselves in their own native tongue or by creating an environment where we unify ethnic diversity by promoting one lingua franca. Situations where both go hand in hand—where the mother tongue as well as lingua franca are used for all forms of communication—is a luxury only enjoyed in states where very few languages are spoken; where their preservation and promotion has never been an issue. However, in fragile states such as Nepal, where almost 93 ethnic languages are spoken and issues on ethnic identities are highly charged, understanding language dynamics to create a national language policy is never easy.
The 2001 census of Nepal recorded around 103 ethnic groups that spoke 93 different languages. None of the ethnic groups form an absolute majority in the context of Nepal. Out of 75 districts, Chettris form a majority in nine districts and minorities in 12 other districts; Brahmins are the largest group in 10 districts, Tamangs are the largest in seven districts, whereas in the south Yadavs are the largest group in five districts. In 61 of the 75 districts no ethnic group enjoys an absolute majority in strict numerical terms. Such diverse social settings and intermingling makes it difficult to designate any particular language as a regional language apart from Nepali, even if the CA were crazy enough to divide the country along ethnic lines.
Since the foundation of Nepal by the Shah dynasty in 1722, the Nepali language was given special protection because the Shah Kings who are ethnically Chettri and the higher caste Brahmin who held most of the bureaucratic positions spoke the language. This historical trend was followed by the Rana rulers, who reigned from 1846 till 1950. During the Rana period, priority was given to produce literature in Nepali with efforts such as making a dictionary in Nepali and forming a Nepali Bhasa Samiti (Nepali Language Publicity Committee). This committee which received special protection from the rulers performed an important task of promoting Nepali as a national language by making it an official language for bureaucratic work, further alienating other important languages spoken in multi-ethnic Nepal. It developed Nepali language and literature throughout the 30s and 40s, also making it possible to learn Nepali in the universities of India where a majority of Nepalis went for education at that period.
After the fall of the Rana regime in 1950, the newly elected democratic government pursued a policy which tried to uplift other languages such as Hindi in Southern Nepal and Newari in the Kathmandu valley. Nevertheless, the government ensured that Nepali was the only language taught in school, the only exception being the learning of other languages for PhD research or anthropological studies. This democratic government was dissolved by King Mahendra to start an absolute monarchy. Mahendra introduced a Panchayat system in 1962 with an idea to promote Nepali nationalism under the banner of “one nation, one political system” in which Nepali language would play a vital part for ethnic assimilation. This policy took language as a source of political and state unification, completely ignoring the issues of ethnic identification. In the name of nation building, a programme of Nepalisisation of Nepal was launched with investments solely confined to the Nepali language. Even though Article 10 of the 1962 Panchayat constitution had provided Nepali citizens equal rights, it did not specify linguistic equality and gave Nepali language the status of national language, making it the medium of instruction, media, parliament and court debates. Therefore, Nepali language was bolstered by this history while other ethnic group lost the opportunity to learn in their languages and develop them further.
The second wave of democratisation in 1990 promised new hopes for ethnic minorities. The new Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal stated that Nepal is a “multi-ethnic, multi-lingual” nation. In the same document, Article 18 even states that “each community shall have the right to operate schools up to primary level in its own mother tongue for imparting education to its children.” The constitution allowed linguistic minorities to educate their young in their mother tongues until class five. However, the policy could never be implemented in earnest even though Nepal started pursuing a liberal language policy in which Nepali was considered the official language and other ethnic languages the languages of the nation. Nevertheless, the politics and government were once again in the control of Brahmin and Chettris, who promised a lot but gave very little. Maoists materialised on ethnic sentiments of lower-caste citizens and other ethnic minorities to make their revolution successful and the rest is history.
This approach to assimilation post-1990 is at the heart the current eruption of ethnic sentiments. The challenge now is to incorporate this emerging ethnic consciousness into a new constitution. The historical injustices have to be questioned and rectified. Nevertheless, this is easier said than done. Nepal’s future path is not easy because the state lacks resources and tools to create harmony by giving proper space and preservation to other ethnic languages. We can question whether teaching ethnic languages is itself a smart policy for Nepali citizens, who may opt for English or other foreign languages than their own mother tongue. The 601 CA members thus have a difficult task ahead of them—if they are up to the task remain to be seen.
(To be continued)
(The author is a freelance writer)
Posted on: 2010-08-27 08:51
Headlines
Advertisements
