[BRIEF NOTE] On Nepali language conflict

[rfmcdonald]

Dhruba Adhikari at Asia Times has come up with an interesting article, "Nepal plunges into politics of language," which describes how the Maoists who now govern Nepal are trying to deal with the country's multilingualism by privileging minority languages as much as possible.

The issue of official language(s) has never been as sensitive in Nepal as it is now. While the interim statute maintains the continuity of Nepali, in Devnagari script, as the language of official communication, some members of the 601-strong Constituent Assembly want to add 11 more languages to the list, giving them the same status, while others are advocating for the addition of Hindi.

Otherwise, the members will resort to writing "notes of dissent", unwittingly using an English expression to press their point. One contention is that since Nepal is now a republic, it should adopt a language policy to de-link the country's monarchical past.

If all 11 languages gain equal status with Nepali as demanded, that will still leave Nepal's 60 other languages and dialects, whichare spoken by just 1% of the population in a country of over 25 million people, off the list.

But does Nepal have the required resource-base to have a dozen official languages? Yes, it is possible, said commentator Shyam Shrestha. Since democracy requires equality, the state should be prepared to pay a concomitant price for it, he said in a recent newspaper article.

[. . .]

Nepali, an offspring of Sanskrit, is the mother tongue of 49% of the population and has been in use for official communication for centuries. In Nepal's neighborhood and beyond it is also called Gorkhali, a name derived to identify it with the world famous Gurkha soldiers. It is a language with an enriched vocabulary, grammar and literature. Besides being the official language, Nepali has provided a link between and among communities speaking local languages and dialects.

To some extent, this attempt to enfranchise minority languages reflects policies in many Communist state. Early Soviet nationality policies, which, as George Liber describes, at least nominally saw the devolution of power and cultural/linguistic equality for non-Russian minorities even extending to the realm of government affairs, all fitting within a Soviet people. Chinese nationality policy was similar, with the exception that the theoretical right to secede was not included.

Adhruba, who seems quite skeptical of the efforts, argues that questions of language standardization and the roles played by extra-Nepali languages will complica

Some scholars of the Rai community in the eastern hills, for instance, have discovered 28 variations of the Rai language, with speakers of each group wanting their dialect to receive identical treatment from the state. The Sherpa community, which provides high-altitude guides to mountaineers attempting to scale Everest and other Himalayan peaks, is uncomfortable over purported moves to marginalize their language to bestow a higher status to a language used by recent immigrants from Tibet. But people living in the foothills of snow-capped mountains in the northern belt have not lost their cool, and are not making much noise.

The situation is quite different in the southern belt, which shares porous borders with India's Bihar state - known for lawlessness - and Uttar Pradesh state, with a large population, among others. Small political parties, with loaded regional overtones, suddenly felt strong enough to demand that Hindi, spoken mainly in northern India and popularized by India's Mumbai-based film industry, be given the status enjoyed by Nepali. This happened on the eve of the national polls of April 2008 that were held to elect the constituent assembly.

Existing regional parties were emboldened with the sudden emergence of new parties, mainly consisting of disgruntled leaders from the mainstream national parties such as Nepali Congress and the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML), which is considered a moderate communist group when compared with the Maoists.

Media reports claimed the new political parties were floated - ahead of the crucial election - with moral and material support from the south; but official India promptly denied such reports and allegations.

Those who have appeared vocal in the constituent assembly debate belong to these newly formed parties, and have inserted the dissenting opinion with the demand that Hindi too be made an official language like Nepali. Their main argument is that since most Nepalis watch Hindi films and enjoy listening to Hindi music there should not be any hesitation to accept it as an official Nepal language.

Adhikari quotes a professor who argues for the preservation of Nepali as a common national language, with minority languages and languages of cultural/religious importance coming afterward. Given the situation that Adhikari describes above, it doesn't seem very plausible to expect the different non-Nepali language groups to agree.

Thoughts?